Antharam, Phanindra

There are contrasting data on concomitant Impella device in cardiogenic shock patients treated with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) (ECPELLA). This study sought to compare early mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with ECPELLA in comparison to VA ECMO alone. We reviewed the published literature from 2000 to 2018 for randomized, cohort, case-control, and case series studies evaluating adult patients requiring VA ECMO for cardiogenic shock. Five retrospective observational studies, representing 425 patients, were included. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with concomitant Impella strategy was used in 27% of the patients. Median age across studies varied between 51 and 63 years with 59–88% patients being male. Use of ECPELLA was associated with higher weaning from VA ECMO and bridging to permanent ventricular assist device or cardiac transplant in three and four studies, respectively. The studies showed moderate heterogeneity with possible publication bias. The two studies that accounted for differences in baseline characteristics between treatment groups reported lower 30 day mortality with ECPELLA versus VA ECMO. The remaining three studies did not adjust for potential confounding and were at high risk for selection bias. In conclusion, ECPELLA is being increasingly used as a strategy in patients with cardiogenic shock. Additional large, high-quality studies are needed to evaluate clinical outcomes with ECPELLA.

Background: There are contrasting reports on the effectiveness of a concomitant intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in cardiogenic shock patients treated with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). This study sought to compare short-term mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO with and without IABP. Methods and Results: We reviewed the published literature from 2000 to 2018 for studies evaluating adult patients requiring VA-ECMO for cardiogenic shock with concomitant IABP. Studies reporting short-term mortality were included. Meta-analysis of the association of IABP with mortality was performed using Mantel-Haenszel models. Subgroup analyses were performed in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock. Twenty-two observational studies with 4653 patients were included. These studies showed high heterogeneity for the total and postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock cohorts and low heterogeneity for the AMI cohort. Short-term mortality was not significantly different in patients with and without IABP 42.1% versus 57.8%; risk ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.52–1.22; P =0.30. However, concomitant IABP with VA-ECMO was associated with lower mortality in patients with AMI (50.8% versus 62.4%; risk ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46–0.67; P <0.001). There was no difference in mortality in postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock and mixed causes for cardiogenic shock. Conclusions: In cardiogenic shock patients requiring VA-ECMO support, the use of IABP did not influence mortality in the total cohort. In patients with AMI, use of IABP with VA-ECMO was associated with 18.5% lower mortality in comparison to patients on VA-ECMO alone. Further randomized studies are warranted to corroborate these observational data.