Comparison of mechanical circulatory support with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or Impella for patients with cardiogenic shock: a propensity-matched analysis

Safety and utility of mechanical circulatory support in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Although mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is an increasingly utilized therapeutic option in AMI-CS, studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of different forms of MCS have yielded conflicting results. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of different forms of MCS.

METHODS

A database search was performed for studies reporting on the association of different forms of MCS with clinical outcomes in patients with AMI-CS. The primary efficacy endpoints were short term (≤30 days) and long term (>30 days) all-cause mortality. Secondary efficacy endpoints included recurrent AMI, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, device-related limb complications, moderate to severe bleeding events, and cerebrovascular accidents (CVA).

RESULTS

2752 patients with AMI-CS met inclusion criteria. Results were available comparing ECMO to other MCS or medical therapy alone, comparing IABP to medical therapy alone, and comparing pLVAD to IABP. Use of ECMO was not associated with lower risk of 30-day or long-term mortality compared to pVAD or standard medical therapy with or without IABP placement but was associated with higher risk of device-related limb complications and moderate to severe bleeding compared to pVAD. IABP use was not associated with a lower risk of 30 day or long-term mortality but was associated with higher risk of recurrent AMI and moderate to severe bleeding compared to medical therapy. Compared to IABP, pVAD use was associated with lower risk of CV mortality but not recurrent AMI. pVAD was associated with a higher risk of device-related limb complications and moderate to severe bleeding compared to IABP use.

CONCLUSION

Use of ECMO or IABP in patients with AMI-CS is not associated with significant improvement in mortality. pVAD is associated with a lower risk of CV mortality. All MCS types are associated with increased risk of complications. Additional high-quality studies are needed to determine the optimal MCS therapy for patients with AMI-CS.

Feasibility of using the ProtekDuo cannula in V-P ECMO and PROpella configurations during ground and air transport

INTRODUCTION

Use of the ProtekDuo cannula has been described for right ventricular assist devices (RVADs) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) systems.

CASE REPORT

We describe remote cannulation and transport of two patients with ProtekDuo cannula. One patient had isolated acute right ventricular failure (aRVF), was cannulated with ProtekDuo cannula in venopulmonary (V-P) configuration and transported by ambulance. Another patient had biventricular failure after myocardial infarction, was supported with ProtekDuo and Impella CP in PROpella configuration, and transported by helicopter.

DISCUSSION

We appear to be the first group to report remote cannulation using the ProtekDuo cannula followed by ambulance and helicopter transport, which were performed without complication. We describe the pros and cons of these configurations in comparison to the gold standard of shock management with venoarterial ECMO, as well as important considerations for transport.

CONCLUSION

Use of the ProtekDuo cannula for remote cannulations and transport is feasible and appears safe.

Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies

PURPOSE

Cardiogenic shock is associated with high mortality. In refractory shock, it is unclear if mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices improve survival. We conducted a network meta-analysis to determine which MCS devices confers greatest benefit.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases through 27 August 2023 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched studies (PSMs). We conducted frequentist network meta-analysis, investigating mortality (either 30 days or in-hospital) as the primary outcome. We assessed risk of bias (Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool/Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) and as sensitivity analysis reconstructed survival data from published survival curves for a one-stage unadjusted individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis using a stratified Cox model.

RESULTS

We included 38 studies (48,749 patients), mostly reporting on patients with Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention shock stages C-E cardiogenic shock. Compared with no MCS, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with intra-aortic balloon pump (ECMO-IABP; network odds ratio [OR]: 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.86, moderate certainty) was associated with lower mortality. There were no differences in mortality between ECMO, IABP, microaxial ventricular assist device (mVAD), ECMO-mVAD, centrifugal VAD, or mVAD-IABP and no MCS (all very low certainty). Our one-stage IPD survival meta-analysis based on the stratified Cox model found only ECMO-IABP was associated with lower mortality (hazard ratio, HR, 0.55, 95% CI 0.46-0.66).

CONCLUSION

In patients with cardiogenic shock, ECMO-IABP may reduce mortality, while other MCS devices did not reduce mortality. However, this must be interpreted within the context of inter-study heterogeneity and limited certainty of evidence.

Impella Versus VA-ECMO for Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Comprehensive Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analyses

Impella and VA-ECMO are two possible therapeutic courses for the treatment of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). The study aims to perform a systematic literature review and meta-analyses of a comprehensive set of clinical and socio-economic outcomes observed when using Impella or VA-ECMO with patients under CS. A systematic literature review was performed in Medline, and Web of Science databases on 21 February 2022. Nonoverlapping studies with adult patients supported for CS with Impella or VA-ECMO were searched. Study designs including RCTs, observational studies, and economic evaluations were considered. Data on patient characteristics, type of support, and outcomes were extracted. Additionally, meta-analyses were performed on the most relevant and recurring outcomes, and results shown using forest plots. A total of 102 studies were included, 57% on Impella, 43% on VA-ECMO. The most common outcomes investigated were mortality/survival, duration of support, and bleeding. Ischemic stroke was lower in patients treated with Impella compared to the VA-ECMO population, with statistically significant difference. Socio-economic outcomes including quality of life or resource use were not reported in any study. The study highlighted areas where further data collection is needed to clarify the value of complex, new technologies in the treatment of CS that will enable comparative assessments focusing both on the health impact on patient outcomes and on the financial burden for government budgets. Future studies need to fill the gap to comply with recent regulatory updates at the European and national levels.

Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock: Current Studies and Future Directions

Cardiogenic shock (CS) caused by acute myocardial infarction (AMI) accounts for most deaths in the population with AMI and continues to be associated with high short-term mortality. Several temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have been developed to treat CS and studied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with AMI-CS. Unfortunately, none of these RCTs has demonstrated an improvement in survival with temporary MCS in AMI-CS. Potential reasons for these negative results in RCTs are numerous and reflect the challenges of enrolling critically ill patients with CS. Researchers have used observational study designs to provide insights about outcomes associated with the use of temporary MCS in AMI-CS. These observational studies have yielded conflicting results, in some cases contrary to the results of RCTs. Several limitations pertinent to both RCTs and observational analyses, mostly relating to selection bias and failure to consider unmeasured confounding variables and population heterogeneity, preclude drawing strong inferences regarding the effects of temporary MCS on survival in populations with AMI-CS. Understanding these limitations is essential to correctly interpreting the literature regarding temporary MCS to treat AMI-CS and is necessary to inform the design of future studies that will potentially provide stronger evidence. Optimally matching temporary MCS devices to the needs of individual patients with AMI-CS will presumably be more successful than indiscriminate application in unselected patients. In this review, we discuss the existing literature on temporary MCS to treat AMI-CS and describe the specific challenges that must be overcome to develop an improved evidence base for guiding clinical practice.

IMPELLA VERSUS EXTRACORPOREAL MEMBRANE OXYGENATION IN CARDIOGENIC SHOCK: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

ABSTRACT

Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) carries high mortality. The roles of specific mechanical circulatory support (MCS) systems are unclear. We compared the clinical outcomes of Impella versus extracorporal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with CS. Methods: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis that was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guidelines. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception through May 10, 2022) for studies comparing the outcomes of Impella versus ECMO in CS. We used random-effects models to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CIs). End points included in-hospital, 30-day, and 12-month all-cause mortality, successful weaning from MCS, bridge to transplant, all reported bleeding, stroke, and acute kidney injury. Results: A total of 10 studies consisting of 1,827 CS patients treated with MCS were included in the analysis. The risk of in-hospital all-cause mortality was significantly lower with Impella compared with ECMO (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-1.00; P = 0.05), whereas there was no statistically significant difference in 30-day (RR, 0.97, 95% CI, 0.82-1.16; P = 0.77) and 12-month mortality (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74-1.11; P = 0.32). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of successful weaning (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.81-1.15; P = 0.70) and bridging to transplant (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58-1.35; P = 0.56). There was less risk of bleeding and stroke in the Impella group compared with the ECMO group. Conclusions: In patients with CS, the use of Impella is associated with lower rates of in-hospital mortality, bleeding, and stroke than ECMO. Future randomized studies with adequate sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings.

Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device in Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Microaxial left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are increasingly used to support patients with cardiogenic shock; however, outcome results are limited to single-center studies, registry data and select reviews. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching three databases for relevant studies reporting on microaxial LVAD use in adults with cardiogenic shock. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis (DerSimonian and Laird) based on short-term mortality (primary outcome), long-term mortality and device complications (secondary outcomes). We assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the Joanna Briggs Institute and the GRADE approaches, respectively. A total of 63 observational studies (3896 patients), 6 propensity-score matched (PSM) studies and 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included (384 patients). The pooled short-term mortality from observational studies was 46.5% (95%-CI: 42.7–50.3%); this was 48.9% (95%-CI: 43.8–54.1%) amongst PSM studies and RCTs. The pooled mortality at 90 days, 6 months and 1 year was 41.8%, 51.1% and 54.3%, respectively. Hemolysis and access-site bleeding were the most common complications, each with a pooled incidence of around 20%. The reported mortality rate of microaxial LVADs was not significantly lower than extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP). Current evidence does not suggest any mortality benefit when compared to ECMO or IABP.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis of mortality and complications

BACKGROUND

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (va-ECMO) is an advanced life support for critically ill patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. This temporary support bridges time for recovery, permanent assist, or transplantation in patients with high risk of mortality. However, the benefit of this modality is still subject of discussion and despite the continuous development of critical care medicine, severe cardiogenic shock remains associated with high mortality. Therefore, this work aims to analyze the current literature regarding in-hospital mortality and complication rates of va-ECMO in patients with cardiogenic shock.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the most recent literature to analyze the outcomes of va-ECMO support. Using the PRISMA guidelines, Medline (PubMed) and Scopus (Elsevier) databases were systematically searched up to May 2022. Meta-analytic pooled estimation of publications variables was performed using a weighted random effects model for study size.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies comprising 12756 patients were included in the final analysis. Between 1994 and 2019, 62% (pooled estimate, 8493/12756) of patients died in the hospital. More than one-third of patients died during ECMO support. The most frequent complications were renal failure (51%, 693/1351) with the need for renal replacement therapy (44%, 4879/11186) and bleeding (49%, 1971/4523), bearing the potential for permanent injury or death. Univariate meta-regression analyses identified age over 60 years, shorter ECMO duration and presence of infection as variables associated with in-hospital mortality, while the studies reporting a higher incidence of cannulation site bleeding were unexpectedly associated with a reduced in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is an invasive life support with a high risk of complications. We identified a pooled in-hospital mortality of 62% with patient age, infection and ECMO support duration being associated with a higher mortality. Protocols and techniques must be developed to reduce the rate of adverse events. Finally, randomized trials are necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of va-ECMO in cardiogenic shock.

The Therapeutic Use of Impella Device in Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review

Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) devices nowadays have been linked to cardiogenic shock (CS) due to the importance of their use as therapeutic instruments. This study aims to review pathophysiologic mechanisms of cardiogenic shock and the implementation of Impella to overcome this condition. To investigate several different types of studies and analyze the use of Impella device in cardiogenic shock and the outcomes of heart malfunctioning and determine its positive and negative impacts as a therapeutic tool in cardiac ischemia and use as a resource in critical patients, we conducted a systematic review through different databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar) following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist and used the Medical Subjects Heading (MeSH) search strategy to obtain significant articles. We found 883 papers in total, and after removing duplicates, applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, and finding the most significant information, we ended up with 30 articles that were reviewed containing information about the impact of Impella device in cardiogenic shock in different locations. The study strongly concludes that Impella device in the setting of cardiogenic shock has more advantages than disadvantages in terms of outcomes and complications as a non-pharmacologic tool. Improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction and signs and symptoms of cardiogenic shock criteria were determinants. Nevertheless, complications during the implementation and use of the device were established; in this manner, the evaluation and treatment of each patient separately are imperative. Consequently, more studies on this relevant topic are needed.

Impella versus extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (ECMO) for cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in cardiogenic shock (CS) is increasing. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare outcomes with the Impella device vs. ECMO in patients with CS.

METHODS

We searched the Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases for observational studies comparing Impella to ECMO in patients with CS. Risk ratios (RRs) for categorical variables and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twelve retrospective studies and one prospective study (Impella n=6652, ECMO n=1232) were identified. Impella use was associated with lower incidence of in-hospital mortality (RR 0.88 [95% CI 0.80-0.94], p=0.0004), stroke (RR 0.30 [0.21-0.42], p<0.00001), access-site bleeding (RR 0.50 [0.37-0.69], p<0.0001), major bleeding (RR 0.56 [0.39-0.80], p=0.002), and limb ischemia (RR 0.42 [0.27-0.65], p=0.0001). Baseline lactate levels were significantly lower in the Impella group (SMD -0.52 [-0.73- -0.31], p<0.00001). There was no significant difference in mortality at 6-12 months, MCS duration, need for MCS escalation, bridge-to-LVAD or heart transplant, and renal replacement therapy use between Impella and ECMO groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with CS, Impella device use was associated with lower in-hospital mortality, stroke, and device-related complications than ECMO. However, patients in the ECMO group had higher baseline lactate levels.

Impella versus Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives: Despite an increase in the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices for acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), there is currently no randomised data directly comparing the use of Impella and veno-arterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). Methods: Electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched in November 2021. Studies directly comparing the use of Impella (CP, 2.5 or 5.0) with VA-ECMO for AMI-CS were included. Studies examining other modalities of MCS, or other causes of cardiogenic shock, were excluded. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results: No randomised trials comparing VA-ECMO to Impella in patients with AMI-CS were identified. Six cohort studies (five retrospective and one prospective) were included for systematic review. All studies, including 7093 patients, were included in meta-analysis. Five studies reported in-hospital mortality, which, when pooled, was 42.4% in the Impella group versus 50.1% in the VA-ECMO group. Impella support for AMI-CS was associated with an 11% relative risk reduction in in-hospital mortality compared to VA-ECMO (risk ratio 0.89; 95% CI 0.83–0.96, I² 0%). Of the six studies, three studies also adjusted outcome measures via propensity-score matching with reported reductions in in-hospital mortality with Impella compared to VA-ECMO (risk ratio 0.72; 95% CI 0.59–0.86, I² 35%). Pooled analysis of five studies with 6- or 12-month mortality data reported a 14% risk reduction with Impella over the medium-to-long-term (risk ratio 0.86; 95% CI 0.76–0.97, I² 0%). Conclusions: There is no high-level evidence comparing VA-ECMO and Impella in AMI-CS. In available observation studies, MCS with Impella was associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital and medium-term mortality as compared to VA-ECMO.

Mortality in cardiogenic shock patients receiving mechanical circulatory support: a network meta-analysis

Objective

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are widely used for cardiogenic shock (CS). This network meta-analysis aims to evaluate which MCS strategy offers advantages.

Methods

A systemic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. Studies included double-blind, randomized controlled, and observational trials, with 30-day follow-ups. Paired independent researchers conducted the screening, data extraction, quality assessment, and consistency and heterogeneity assessment.

Results

We included 39 studies (1 report). No significant difference in 30-day mortality was noted between venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and VA-ECMO plus Impella, Impella, and medical therapy. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, the optimal ranking of the interventions was surgical venting plus VA-ECMO, medical therapy, VA-ECMO plus Impella, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella, Tandem Heart, VA-ECMO, and Impella plus IABP. Regarding in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality, the forest plot showed low heterogeneity. The results of the node-splitting approach showed that direct and indirect comparisons had a relatively high consistency.

Conclusions

IABP more effectively reduce the incidence of 30-day mortality compared with VA-ECMO and Impella for the treatment of CS.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-022-02493-0.

Comparison of Mechanical Support with Impella or Extracorporeal Life Support in Post-Cardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock: A Propensity Scoring Matching Analysis

Our aim was to compare the outcomes of Impella with extracorporeal life support (ECLS) in patients with post-cardiac arrest cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This was a retrospective study of patients resuscitated from out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with post-cardiac arrest CS following AMI (May 2015 to May 2020). Patients were supported either with Impella 2.5/CP or ECLS. Outcomes were compared using propensity score-matched analysis to account for differences in baseline characteristics between groups. 159 patients were included (Impella, n = 105; ECLS, n = 54). Hospital and 12-month survival rates were comparable in the Impella and the ECLS groups (p = 0.16 and p = 0.3, respectively). After adjustment for baseline differences, both groups demonstrated comparable hospital and 12-month survival (p = 0.36 and p = 0.64, respectively). Impella patients had a significantly greater left ventricle ejection-fraction (LVEF) improvement at 96 h (p < 0.01 vs. p = 0.44 in ECLS) and significantly fewer device-associated complications than ECLS patients (15.2% versus 35.2%, p < 0.01 for relevant access site bleeding, 7.6% versus 20.4%, p = 0.04 for limb ischemia needing intervention). In subgroup analyses, Impella was associated with better survival in patients with lower-risk features (lactate < 8.6 mmol/L, time from collapse to return of spontaneous circulation < 28 min, vasoactive score < 46 and Horowitz index > 182). In conclusion, the use of Impella 2.5/CP or ECLS in post-cardiac arrest CS after AMI was associated with comparable adjusted hospital and 12-month survival. Impella patients had a greater LVEF improvement than ECLS patients. Device-related access-site complications occurred more frequently in patients with ECLS than Impella support.

IMPELLA® or Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Left Ventricular Dominant Refractory Cardiogenic Shock

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are effective tools in managing refractory cardiogenic shock (CS). Data comparing veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and IMPELLA^® are however scarce. We aimed to assess outcomes of patients implanted with these two devices and eligible to both systems. From 2004 to 2020, we retrospectively analyzed 128 patients who underwent VA-ECMO or IMPELLA^® in our institution for refractory left ventricle (LV) dominant CS. All patients were eligible to both systems: 97 patients were first implanted with VA-ECMO and 31 with IMPELLA^®. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause death. VA-ECMO patients were younger (52 vs. 59.4, p = 0.006) and had a higher lactate level at baseline than those in the IMPELLA^® group (6.84 vs. 3.03 mmol/L, p < 0.001). Duration of MCS was similar between groups (9.4 days vs. 6 days in the VA-ECMO and IMPELLA^® groups respectively, p = 0.077). In unadjusted analysis, no significant difference was observed between groups in 30-day mortality: 43.3% vs. 58.1% in the VA-ECMO and IMPELLA^® groups, respectively (p = 0.152). After adjustment, VA-ECMO was associated with a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (HR = 0.25, p = 0.004). A higher rate of MCS escalation was observed in the IMPELLA^® group: 32.3% vs. 10.3% (p = 0.003). In patients eligible to either VA-ECMO or IMPELLA^® for LV dominant refractory CS, VA-ECMO was associated with improved survival rate and a lower need for escalation.