Extracorporeal Life Support in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction

Do DanGer-SHOCK-like patients benefit from VA-ECMO treatment in infarct-related cardiogenic shock? results of an individual patient data meta-analysis

AIMS

In a recent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, routine use of veno-arterial ECMO (VA-ECMO) did not improve outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), while a microaxial flow pump reduced mortality in a selected group of patients with AMI-CS in the DanGer-Shock trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Individual patient data of patients included in four randomized clinical trials investigating the routine use of VA-ECMO in AMI-CS were centrally analysed. For the purpose of this sub-analysis, DanGer-Shock-like patients were analysed (STEMI only, presumed low likelihood of brain injury). The primary endpoint was 180-day all-cause mortality. A total of 202 patients (106 randomized to VA-ECMO and 96 to control) were included. There were no differences in baseline characteristics, angiographic and interventional features between the two groups. Mortality after 6 months was numerically lower with VA-ECMO between the groups [45% in VA-ECMO group vs. 51% in control group; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56-1.26], while major bleeding (OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.08-4.64) and peripheral vascular complications (OR, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.15-11.56) were increased with the use of VA-ECMO.

CONCLUSION

In this exploratory subgroup analysis in patients with CS, STEMI, and a low likelihood of brain injury, there was no mortality benefit with the routine use of VA-ECMO. However, as indicated by the large confidence intervals, the statistical power was limited to draw definite conclusions.

Review of Advancements in Managing Cardiogenic Shock: From Emergency Care Protocols to Long-Term Therapeutic Strategies

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex multifactorial clinical syndrome of end-organ hypoperfusion that could be associated with multisystem organ failure, presenting a diverse range of causes and symptoms. Despite improving survival in recent years due to new advancements, CS still carries a high risk of severe morbidity and mortality. Recent research has focused on improving early detection and understanding of CS through standardized team approaches, detailed hemodynamic assessment, and selective use of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices, leading to better patient outcomes. This review examines CS pathophysiology, emerging classifications, current drug and device therapies, standardized team management strategies, and regionalized care systems aimed at optimizing shock outcomes. Furthermore, we identify gaps in knowledge and outline future research needs.

[Peripheral extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in perioperative medicine : Principles, indications and challenges]

In recent years the number of patients treated in intensive care units by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) due to severe respiratory failure or cardiogenic shock has steadily increased [1]. Consequently, the number of invasive procedures and operations in these patients has also increased. A fundamental understanding of these systems and the clinical indications is therefore helpful for the practicing (non-cardiac) surgeon. This review article focuses on peripheral ECMO procedures: venovenous (V-V) ECMO for patients with respiratory failure and venoarterial (V-A) ECMO for circulatory support in cardiogenic shock.

Beyond one-size-fits-all in cardiogenic shock: impella, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or tailored use of mechanical circulatory support?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article offers an overview of recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the efficacy of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) and microaxial flow pump (mAFP) in treating cardiogenic shock, including findings from the DanGer shock trial. It summarizes the clinical implications and limitations of these studies and key decision-making considerations for cardiogenic shock device use.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite important limitations in all published RCTs, the routine use of VA ECMO for acute myocardial infarction related cardiogenic shock did not demonstrate benefit and should be reserved for selected patients with extreme forms of cardiogenic shock. Conversely, mAFP (Impella CP) appears promising for cardiogenic shock due to ST elevation myocardial infarction. A stepwise approach - initial mAFP use for cardiogenic shock with left ventricular failure, supplemented by VA ECMO if mAFP is inadequate or if severe right ventricular failure is present - may be preferable, but requires validation through RCTs. High complication rates in device arms underscore the need for careful patient selection, preventive strategies, education for centers and operators, and further research.

SUMMARY

Recent trials offer insights into mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock, but their real-world applicability is limited. Despite potential benefits, the use of VA ECMO and mAFP is associated with significant complication rates, emphasizing the need for personalized use.

What is cardiogenic shock? New clinical criteria urgently needed

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiogenic shock is a clinical syndrome with different causes and a complex pathophysiology. Recent evidence from clinical trials evokes the urgent need for redefining clinical diagnostic criteria to be compliant with the definition of cardiogenic shock and current diagnostic methods.

RECENT FINDINGS

Conflicting results from randomized clinical trials investigating mechanical circulatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock have elicited several extremely important questions. At minimum, it is questionable whether survivors of cardiac arrest should be included in trials focused on cardiogenic shock. Moreover, considering the wide availability of ultrasound and hemodynamic monitors capable of arterial pressure analysis, the current clinical diagnostic criteria based on the presence of hypotension and hypoperfusion have become insufficient. As such, new clinical criteria for the diagnosis of cardiogenic shock should include evidence of low cardiac output and appropriate ventricular filling pressure.

SUMMARY

Clinical diagnostic criteria for cardiogenic shock should be revised to better define cardiac pump failure as a primary cause of hemodynamic compromise.

Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been presented as a potential therapeutic option for patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction (CS-MI). We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of ECMO in CS-MI.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials obtained from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science until September 2023. We used the random-effects model to report dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio and continuous outcomes using mean difference with a 95% confidence interval. Finally, we implemented a trial sequential analysis to evaluate the reliability of our results.

RESULTS

We included four trials with 611 patients. No significant difference was observed between ECMO and standard care groups in 30-day mortality with pooled RR of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.81-1.13, p = 0.60), acute kidney injury (RR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.41-1.03, p = 0.07), stroke (RR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.38-3.57, p = 0.80), sepsis (RR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.77-1.47, p = 0.71), pneumonia (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.58-1.68, p = 0.96), and 30-day reinfarction (RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.25-3.60, p = 0.94). However, the ECMO group had higher bleeding events (RR: 2.07, 95% CI: 1.44-2.97, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

ECMO did not improve clinical outcomes compared to the standard of care in patients with CS-MI but increased the bleeding risk.

Bridge to Life: Current Landscape of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Heart-Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock

Acute heart failure (HF) presents a significant mortality burden, necessitating continuous therapeutic advancements. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is crucial in managing cardiogenic shock (CS) secondary to acute HF, serving as a bridge to recovery or durable support. Currently, MCS options include the Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP), TandemHeart (TH), Impella, and Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VA-ECMO), each offering unique benefits and risks tailored to patient-specific factors and clinical scenarios. This review examines the clinical implications of recent advancements in temporary MCS, identifies knowledge gaps, and explores promising avenues for future research and clinical application. Understanding each device's unique attributes is crucial for their efficient implementation in various clinical scenarios, ultimately advancing towards intelligent, personalized support strategies.

The use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock: a narrative review

Aims

Cardiogenic shock (CS) develops in up to 10% of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and carries a 50% risk of mortality. Despite the paucity of evidence regarding its benefits, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used in clinical practice in patients with AMI in CS (AMI-CS). This review aims to provide an in-depth description of the four available randomized controlled trials to date designed to evaluate the benefit of VA-ECMO in patients with AMI-CS.

Methods and results

The literature search was conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar, and clinicaltrials.gov to identify the four relevant randomized control trials from years of inception to October 2023. Despite differences in patient selection, nuances in trial conduction, and variability in trial endpoints, all four trials (ECLS-SHOCK I, ECMO-CS, EUROSHOCK, and ECLS-SHOCK) failed to demonstrate a mortality benefit with the use of VA-ECMO in AMI-CS, with high rates of device-related complications. However, the outcome of these trials is nuanced by the limitations of each study that include small sample sizes, challenging patient selection, and high cross-over rates to the intervention group, and lack of use of left ventricular unloading strategies.

Conclusion

The presented literature of VA-ECMO in CS does not support its routine use in clinical practice. We have yet to identify which subset of patients would benefit most from this intervention. This review emphasizes the need for designing adequately powered trials to properly assess the role of VA-ECMO in AMI-CS, in order to build evidence for best practices.

Hemodynamic management of cardiogenic shock in the intensive care unit

Hemodynamic derangements are defining features of cardiogenic shock. Randomized clinical trials have examined the efficacy of various therapeutic interventions, from percutaneous coronary intervention to inotropes and mechanical circulatory support (MCS). However, hemodynamic management in cardiogenic shock has not been well-studied. This State-of-the-Art review will provide a framework for hemodynamic management in cardiogenic shock, including a description of the 4 therapeutic phases from initial 'Rescue' to 'Optimization', 'Stabilization' and 'de-Escalation or Exit therapy' (R-O-S-E), phenotyping and phenotype-guided tailoring of pharmacological and MCS support, to achieve hemodynamic and therapeutic goals. Finally, the premises that form the basis for clinical management and the hypotheses for randomized controlled trials will be discussed, with a view to the future direction of cardiogenic shock.

Year in Review 2023: Noteworthy Literature in Cardiothoracic Critical Care

This article reviews noteworthy investigations and society recommendations published in 2023 relevant to the care of critically ill cardiothoracic surgical patients. We reviewed 3,214 articles to identify 18 publications that add to the existing literature across a variety of topics including resuscitation, nutrition, antibiotic management, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), neurologic care following cardiac arrest, coagulopathy and transfusion, steroids in pulmonary infections, and updated guidelines in the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Extracorporeal Life Support in Myocardial Infarction: New Highlights

Background and Objectives: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a potentially severe complication following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The use of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in these patients has risen significantly over the past two decades, especially when conventional treatments fail. Our aim is to provide an overview of the role of VA-ECMO in CS complicating AMI, with the most recent literature highlights. Materials and Methods: We have reviewed the current VA-ECMO practices with a particular focus on CS complicating AMI. The largest studies reporting the most significant results, i.e., overall clinical outcomes and management of the weaning process, were identified in the PubMed database from 2019 to 2024. Results: The literature about the use of VA-ECMO in CS complicating AMI primarily has consisted of observational studies until 2019, generating the need for randomized controlled trials. The EURO-SHOCK trial showed a lower 30-day all-cause mortality rate in patients receiving VA-ECMO compared to those receiving standard therapy. The ECMO-CS trial compared immediate VA-ECMO implementation with early conservative therapy, with a similar mortality rate between the two groups. The ECLS-SHOCK trial, the largest randomized controlled trial in this field, found no significant difference in mortality at 30 days between the ECMO group and the control group. Recent studies suggest the potential benefits of combining left ventricular unloading devices with VA-ECMO, but they also highlight the increased complication rate, such as bleeding and vascular issues. The routine use of VA-ECMO in AMI complicated by CS cannot be universally supported due to limited evidence and associated risks. Ongoing trials like the Danger Shock, Anchor, and Recover IV trials aim to provide further insights into the management of AMI complicated by CS. Conclusions: Standardizing the timing and indications for initiating mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is crucial and should guide future trials. Multidisciplinary approaches tailored to individual patient needs are essential to minimize complications from unnecessary MCS device initiation.

ECMO Alone Versus ECPELLA in Patients Affected by Cardiogenic Shock: The Multicenter EVACS Study

The objective was to investigate the outcomes of concomitant venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and left ventricular unloading with Impella (ECPELLA) compared with ECMO alone to treat patients affected by cardiogenic shock. Data from patients needing mechanical circulatory support from 4 international centers were analyzed. Of 438 patients included, ECMO alone and ECPELLA were adopted in 319 (72.8%) and 119 (27.2%) patients, respectively. Propensity score matching analysis identified 95 pairs. In the matched cohort, 30-day mortality rates in the ECMO and ECPELLA were 49.5% and 43.2% ( P = 0.467). The incidences of complications did not differ significantly between groups ( P = 0.877, P = 0.629, P = 1.000, respectively). After a median follow-up of 0.18 years (interquartile range 0.02-2.55), the use of ECPELLA was associated with similar mortality compared with ECMO alone (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.54-1.20, P = 0.285), with 1-year overall survival rates of 51.3% and 46.6%, for ECPELLA and ECMO alone, respectively. ECMO alone and ECPELLA are both effective strategies in patients needing mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock, showing similar rates of early and mid-term survival.

Why VA-ECMO should not be used routinely in AMI-Cardiogenic Shock

This review summarizes the current evidence regarding efficacy and safety of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in the setting of cardiogenic shock. Currently, there is evidence from 4 randomized controlled trials which all do not support a mortality benefit and increased complication rates by VA-ECMO. Based on current evidence, possible subgroups will be discussed and indications in selected very small patient groups be discussed.

Scrutinizing the Role of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Has Clinical Practice Outpaced the Evidence?

The use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for temporary mechanical circulatory support in various clinical scenarios has been increasing consistently, despite the lack of sufficient evidence regarding its benefit and safety from adequately powered randomized controlled trials. Although the ARREST trial (Advanced Reperfusion Strategies for Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation) and a secondary analysis of the PRAGUE OHCA trial (Prague Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) provided some evidence in favor of VA-ECMO in the setting of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the INCEPTION trial (Early Initiation of Extracorporeal Life Support in Refractory Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) has not found a relevant improvement of short-term mortality with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In addition, the results of the recently published ECLS-SHOCK trial (Extracorporeal Life Support in Cardiogenic Shock) and ECMO-CS trial (Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock) discourage the routine use of VA-ECMO in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock. Ongoing clinical trials (ANCHOR [Assessment of ECMO in Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock, NCT04184635], REVERSE [Impella CP With VA ECMO for Cardiogenic Shock, NCT03431467], UNLOAD ECMO [Left Ventricular Unloading to Improve Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock Patients on VA-ECMO, NCT05577195], PIONEER [Hemodynamic Support With ECMO and IABP in Elective Complex High-risk PCI, NCT04045873]) may clarify the usefulness of VA-ECMO in specific patient subpopulations and the efficacy of combined mechanical circulatory support strategies. Pending further data to refine patient selection and management recommendations for VA-ECMO, it remains uncertain whether the present usage of this device improves outcomes.

Impact of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-related complications on in-hospital mortality

INTRODUCTION

Although extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a well-established treatment for supporting severe cardiopulmonary failure, the morbidity and mortality of patients requiring ECMO support remain high. Evaluating and correcting potential risk factors associated with any ECMO-related complications may improve care and decrease mortality. This study aimed to assess the predictors of ECMO-related vascular and cerebrovascular complications among adult patients and to test the hypothesis that ECMO-related complications are associated with higher in-hospital mortality rates.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective study included 856 ECMO runs administered via cannulation of the femoral vessels of 769 patients: venoarterial (VA) ECMO (n = 709, 82.8%) and venovenous (VV) ECMO (n = 147, 17.2%). The study outcomes included the occurrence of ECMO-related vascular and cerebrovascular complications and in-hospital death. The association of ECMO-related complications with the risk of in-hospital death was analyzed.

RESULTS

The incidences of ECMO-related vascular and cerebrovascular complications were 20.2% and 13.6%, respectively. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 48.7%: 52.8% among VA ECMO runs and 29.3% among VV ECMO runs. Multivariable analysis indicated that age (P < 0.01), cardiopulmonary cerebral resuscitation (P < 0.01), continuous renal replacement therapy (P < 0.01), and initial platelet count [<50×103/μL (P = 0.02) and 50-100(×103)/μL (P < 0.01)] were associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death. ECMO-related vascular and cerebrovascular complications were not independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality rates for VA or VV ECMO runs.

CONCLUSION

ECMO-related vascular and cerebrovascular complications were not associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death among adult patients.

End-stage renal disease should not Be considered a contraindication for veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

PURPOSE

This study aims to determine whether end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is a true contraindication for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adult patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adult patients who received VA-ECMO at National Taiwan University Hospital between January 2010 and December 2021 were included. Patients who received regular dialysis before the index admission were included in the ESRD group. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

1341 patients were included in the analysis, 121 of whom had ESRD before index admission. The ESRD group was older (62.3 versus 56.8 years; P < 0.01) and had more comorbidities. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) was used more frequently in the ESRD group (66.1% versus 51.6%; P < 0.001). The ESRD group had higher in-hospital mortality rates (72.7% versus 63.3%; P = 0.03). In the ECPR subgroup, there was no difference of survival between ESRD and others(P = 0.56). In the multivariate Cox regression, ESRD was not an independent predictor for mortality (P = 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

ESRD was not an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality after VA-ECMO. The survival of ESRD patients was not inferior to those without ESRD when receiving ECPR. Therefore, ESRD should not be considered a contraindication to VA-ECMO in adults.

Timing of Initiation of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support and Outcomes Among Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) provides full hemodynamic support for patients with cardiogenic shock, but optimal timing of ECMO initiation remains uncertain. We sought to determine whether earlier initiation of ECMO is associated with improved survival in cardiogenic shock.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analyzed adult patients with cardiogenic shock who received venoarterial ECMO from the international Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) registry from 2009 to 2019, excluding those cannulated following an operation. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the association between time from admission to ECMO initiation and in-hospital death. Among 8619 patients (median, 56.7 [range, 44.8-65.6] years; 33.5% women), the median duration from admission to ECMO initiation was 14 (5-32) hours. Patients who had ECMO initiated within 24 hours (n=5882 [68.2%]) differed from those who had ECMO initiated after 24 hours, with younger age, more preceding cardiac arrest, and worse acidosis. After multivariable adjustment, patients with ECMO initiated >24 hours after admission had higher risk of in-hospital death (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.06-1.36]; P=0.004). Each 12-hour increase in the time from admission to ECMO initiation was incrementally associated with higher adjusted in-hospital mortality rate (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.03-1.10]; P<0.001). The association between longer time to ECMO and worse outcomes appeared stronger in patients with lower shock severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer delays from admission to ECMO initiation were associated with higher a mortality rate in a large-scale, international registry. Our analysis supports optimization of door-to-support time and the avoidance of inappropriately delayed ECMO initiation.

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.

The spectrum of post-myocardial infarction care: From acute ischemia to heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is the leading cause of mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), with incidence ranging from 14% to 36% in patients admitted due to AMI. HF post-MI develops due to complex inter-play between macrovascular obstruction, microvascular dysfunction, myocardial stunning and remodeling, inflammation, and neuro-hormonal activation. Cardiogenic shock is an extreme presentation of HF post-MI and is associated with a high mortality. Early revascularization is the only therapy shown to improve survival in patients with cardiogenic shock. Treatment of HF post-MI requires prompt recognition and timely introduction of guideline-directed therapies to improve mortality and morbidity. This article aims to provide an up-to-date review on the incidence and pathogenesis of HF post-MI, current strategies to prevent and treat onset of HF post-MI, promising therapeutic strategies, and knowledge gaps in the field.

The impact of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation on mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock post-acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims

Cardiogenic shock remains the leading cause of death in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used in the treatment of infarct-related cardiogenic shock. However, there is limited evidence regarding its beneficial impact on mortality. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies reporting the impact of VA-ECMO on mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

Methods and results

A comprehensive search of medical databases (Cochrane Register and PubMed) was conducted. Studies that reported mortality outcomes in patients treated with VA-ECMO for infarct-related cardiogenic shock were included. The database search yielded 1194 results, of which 11 studies were included in the systematic review. Four of these studies, with a total of 586 patients, were randomized controlled trials and were included in the meta-analysis. This demonstrated that there was no significant difference in 30-day all-cause mortality with the use of VA-ECMO compared with standard medical therapy [odds ratio (OR) 0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-1.27]. Meta-analysis of two studies showed that VA-ECMO was associated with a significant reduction in 12-month all-cause mortality (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.11-0.86). Qualitative synthesis of the observational studies showed that age, serum creatinine, serum lactate, and successful revascularization are independent predictors of mortality.

Conclusion

Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation does not improve 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction; however, there may be significant reduction in all-cause mortality at 12 months. Further studies are needed to delineate the potential benefit of VA-ECMO in long-term outcomes.

Registration

The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42023461740).

Early Left Ventricular Unloading or Conventional Approach After Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: The EARLY-UNLOAD Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Although venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is beneficial for the treatment of profound cardiogenic shock, peripheral VA-ECMO cannulation can increase left ventricular afterload, thus compromising myocardial recovery. We investigated whether early routine left ventricular unloading can reduce 30-day mortality compared with the conventional approach in patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing VA-ECMO.

METHODS

This randomized clinical trial involved 116 patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing VA-ECMO from March 2021 to September 2022 at Chonnam National University Hospital, Gwangju, South Korea. The patients were randomly assigned to undergo either early routine left ventricular unloading with transseptal left atrial cannulation within 12 hours after randomization (n=58) or the conventional approach, which permitted rescue transseptal left atrial cannulation in case of an increased left ventricular afterload (n=58). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 30 days.

RESULTS

All 116 randomized patients (mean age, 67.6±13.5 years; 34 [29.3%] women) completed the trial. At 30 days, all-cause death had occurred in 27 (46.6%) patients in the early group and 26 (44.8%) patients in the conventional group (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.59-1.74]; P=0.942). Crossover to rescue transseptal left atrial cannulation occurred in 29 patients (50%) in the conventional group according to a clear indication. Time to rescue transseptal cannulation in the conventional group was a median of 21.8 (interquartile range, 12.4-52.2) hours after randomization. There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes between the 2 groups except for a shorter time to disappearance of pulmonary congestion in the early group (median, 3 [interquartile range, 2-6] versus 5 [interquartile range, 3-7] days; P=0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing VA-ECMO, early routine left ventricular unloading with transseptal left atrial cannulation did not reduce 30-day mortality compared with the conventional strategy, which permitted rescue transseptal left atrial cannulation. These findings should be cautiously interpreted until the results of multicenter trials using other unloading modalities become available.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT04775472.

Outcomes of ECLS-SHOCK Eligibility Criteria Applied to a Real-World Cohort

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) exhibits high (~50%) in-hospital mortality. The recently published Extracorporeal life Support in Cardiogenic Shock (ECLS-SHOCK) trial demonstrated the neutral effects of the use of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) on all-cause death, as well as on all secondary outcomes in subjects presenting with myocardial-infarction (MI)-related CS. Here, we compared ECLS-SHOCK eligibility criteria with a real-world cohort of CS patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

ECLS-SHOCK eligibility criteria were applied to a prospective single-center CS registry (the PREPARE CS registry) consisting of 557 patients who were consecutively admitted to the catheterization laboratory (cath lab) of the Medical University of Graz, Austria, due to CS (SCAI C-E). Overall use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in this cohort was 19%. Sixty-nine percent of the entire cohort had MI-related CS, 38% of whom would have met ECLS-SHOCK eligibility criteria, thus representing only 27% of the PREPARE CS registry. Exclusion from the ECLS-SHOCK trial was based on patients with initial lactate values below 3 mmol/L (n = 168; 43.6%), aged over 80 years (n = 65; 16.9%), and with a duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) exceeding 45 min (n = 22; 5.7%). The 30-day mortality of patients of the PREPARE CS registry who met the ECLS-SHOCK eligibility criteria was 57.0%, compared to 48.4% of patients in the ECLS-SHOCK trial. The patients' baseline characteristics, however, differed considerably with respect to type of infarction, age, and gender.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world cohort of patients with MI-related CS, only 38% of patients met the eligibility criteria of the ECLS-SHOCK trial. Thus, the impact of the use of VA-ECMO on outcome parameters in MI-related CS, as observed in the ECLS-SHOCK trial, may differ in a more heterogeneous real-world CS population of the PREPARE CS registry.

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used in patients with cardiogenic shock despite the lack of evidence from adequately powered randomised clinical trials. Three trials reported so far were underpowered to detect a survival benefit; we therefore conducted an individual patient-based meta-analysis to assess the effect of VA-ECMO on 30-day death rate.

METHODS

Randomised clinical trials comparing early routine use of VA-ECMO versus optimal medical therapy alone in patients presenting with infarct-related cardiogenic shock were identified by searching MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and trial registries until June 12, 2023. Trials were included if at least all-cause death rate 30 days after in-hospital randomisation was reported and trial investigators agreed to collaborate (ie, providing individual patient data). Odds ratios (ORs) as primary outcome measure were pooled using logistic regression models. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023431258).

FINDINGS

Four trials (n=567 patients; 284 VA-ECMO, 283 control) were identified and included. Overall, there was no significant reduction of 30-day death rate with the early use of VA-ECMO (OR 0·93; 95% CI 0·66-1·29). Complication rates were higher with VA-ECMO for major bleeding (OR 2·44; 95% CI 1·55-3·84) and peripheral ischaemic vascular complications (OR 3·53; 95% CI 1·70-7·34). Prespecified subgroup analyses were consistent and did not show any benefit for VA-ECMO (pinteraction ≥0·079).

INTERPRETATION

VA-ECMO did not reduce 30-day death rate compared with medical therapy alone in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock, and an increase in major bleeding and vascular complications was observed. A careful review of the indication for VA-ECMO in this setting is warranted.

FUNDING

Foundation Institut für Herzinfarktforschung.

Extracorporeal Life Support in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is increasingly used in the treatment of infarct-related cardiogenic shock despite a lack of evidence regarding its effect on mortality.

METHODS

In this multicenter trial, patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock for whom early revascularization was planned were randomly assigned to receive early ECLS plus usual medical treatment (ECLS group) or usual medical treatment alone (control group). The primary outcome was death from any cause at 30 days. Safety outcomes included bleeding, stroke, and peripheral vascular complications warranting interventional or surgical therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 420 patients underwent randomization, and 417 patients were included in final analyses. At 30 days, death from any cause had occurred in 100 of 209 patients (47.8%) in the ECLS group and in 102 of 208 patients (49.0%) in the control group (relative risk, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.19; P = 0.81). The median duration of mechanical ventilation was 7 days (interquartile range, 4 to 12) in the ECLS group and 5 days (interquartile range, 3 to 9) in the control group (median difference, 1 day; 95% CI, 0 to 2). The safety outcome consisting of moderate or severe bleeding occurred in 23.4% of the patients in the ECLS group and in 9.6% of those in the control group (relative risk, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.50 to 3.95); peripheral vascular complications warranting intervention occurred in 11.0% and 3.8%, respectively (relative risk, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.31 to 6.25).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock with planned early revascularization, the risk of death from any cause at the 30-day follow-up was not lower among the patients who received ECLS therapy than among those who received medical therapy alone. (Funded by the Else Kröner Fresenius Foundation and others; ECLS-SHOCK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03637205.).

Protocolised Management of Cardiogenic Shock and Shock Teams: A Narrative Review

Despite advances in therapy, the incidence of cardiogenic shock continues to increase, with significant mortality that has improved minimally over time. Treatment options for cardiogenic shock are complex and time-, resource-, and case volume-dependent, and involve multiple medical specialties. To provide early, more equitable, and standardised access to cardiogenic shock expertise with advanced therapies, cardiogenic shock teams with a protocolised treatment approach have been proposed. These processes have been applied across hospitals into integrated cardiogenic shock networks. This narrative review evaluates the role of cardiogenic shock teams, protocolised and regionalised shock networks, and the main individual components of protocolised shock management approaches.

Perspectives and Considerations of IABP in the Era of ECMO for Cardiogenic Shock

The development of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has been rapid, and its use worldwide in patients with cardiogenic shock is increasingly widespread. However, current statistical data and clinical research do not demonstrate its significant improvement in the patient prognosis. This review focuses on the widely used intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), analyzing and comparing their characteristics, efficacy, risk of complications, and the current exploration status of left ventricular mechanical unloading. Subsequently, we propose a rational approach to viewing the negative outcomes of current MCS, and look ahead to the future development trends of IABP.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for critically ill adults

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may provide benefit in certain populations of adults, including those with severe cardiac failure, severe respiratory failure, and cardiac arrest. However, it is also associated with serious short- and long-term complications, and there remains a lack of high-quality evidence to guide practice. Recently several large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published, therefore, we undertook an update of our previous systematic review published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether venovenous (VV), venoarterial (VA), or ECMO cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) improve mortality compared to conventional cardiopulmonary support in critically ill adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was March 2022. The search was limited to English language only.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs, quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs that compared VV ECMO, VA ECMO or ECPR to conventional support in critically ill adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. all-cause mortality at day 90 to one year. Our secondary outcomes were 2. length of hospital stay, 3. survival to discharge, 4. disability, 5. adverse outcomes/safety events, 6. health-related quality of life, 7. longer-term health status, and 8. cost-effectiveness. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs met our inclusion criteria, with four new studies being added to the original review (total 757 participants). Two studies were of VV ECMO (429 participants), one VA ECMO (41 participants), and two ECPR (285 participants). Four RCTs had a low risk of bias and one was unclear, and the overall certainty of the results (GRADE score) was moderate, reduced primarily due to indirectness of the study populations and interventions. ECMO was associated with a reduction in 90-day to one-year mortality compared to conventional treatment (risk ratio [RR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70 to 0.92; P = 0.002, I2 = 11%). This finding remained stable after performing a sensitivity analysis by removing the single trial with an uncertain risk of bias. Subgroup analyses did not reveal a significant subgroup effect across VV, VA, or ECPR modes (P = 0.73). Four studies reported an increased risk of major hemorrhage with ECMO (RR 3.32, 95% CI 1.90 to 5.82; P < 0.001), while two studies reported no difference in favorable neurologic outcome (RR 2.83, 95% CI 0.36 to 22.42; P = 0.32). Other secondary outcomes were not consistently reported across the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this updated systematic review, which included four additional RCTs, we found that ECMO was associated with a reduction in day-90 to one-year all-cause mortality, as well as three times increased risk of bleeding. However, the certainty of this result was only low to moderate, limited by a low number of small trials, clinical heterogeneity, and indirectness across studies.

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or standard care in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: the multicentre, randomised EURO SHOCK trial

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CGS) occurs in 10% of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI), with in-hospital mortality rates of 40-50% despite revascularisation.

AIMS

The EURO SHOCK trial aimed to determine if early use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) could improve outcomes in patients with persistent CGS following primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).

METHODS

This multicentre, pan-European trial randomised patients with persistent CGS 30 minutes after PPCI of the culprit lesion to receive either VA-ECMO or continue with standard therapy. The primary outcome measure was 30-day all-cause mortality in an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary endpoints included 12-month all-cause mortality and 12-month composite of all-cause mortality or rehospitalisation due to heart failure.

RESULTS

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial was stopped before completion of recruitment, after randomisation of 35 patients (standard therapy n=18, VA-ECMO n=17). Thirty-day all-cause mortality occurred in 43.8% of patients randomised to VA-ECMO and in 61.1% of patients randomised to standard therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21-1.45; p=0.22). One-year all-cause mortality was 51.8% in the VA-ECMO group and 81.5% in the standard therapy arm (HR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.21-1.26; p=0.14). Vascular and bleeding complications occurred more often in the VA-ECMO arm (21.4% vs 0% and 35.7% vs 5.6%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the limited number of patients recruited to the trial, no definite conclusions could be drawn from the available data. Our study demonstrates the feasibility of randomising patients with CGS complicating acute MI but also illustrates the challenges. We hope these data will inspire and inform the design of future large-scale trials.

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.

Adjusted mortality of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute myocardial infarction patients in cardiogenic shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a common cause of death following acute myocardial infarction (MI). This study aimed to evaluate the adjusted mortality of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) with intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) for patients with MI-CS. We included 300 MI patients selected from a multinational registry and categorized into VA-ECMO + IABP (N = 39) and no VA-ECMO (medical management ± IABP) (N = 261) groups. Both groups' 30-day and 1-year mortality were compared using the weighted Kaplan-Meier, propensity score, and inverse probability of treatment weighting methods. Adjusted incidences of 30-day (VA-ECMO + IABP vs No VA-ECMO, 77.7% vs 50.7; P = .083) and 1-year mortality (92.3% vs 84.8%; P = .223) along with propensity-adjusted and inverse probability of treatment weighting models in 30-day (hazard ratio [HR], 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-2.77; P = .346 and HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.42-3.17; P = .452, respectively) and 1-year mortality (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.95-2.56; P = .076 and HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.57-3.06; P = .51, respectively) did not differ between the groups. However, better survival benefit 30 days post-ECMO could be supposed (31.6% vs 83.4%; P = .022). Therefore, patients with MI-CS treated with IABP with additional VA-ECMO and those not supported with ECMO have comparable overall 30-day and 1-year mortality risks. However, VA-ECMO-supported survivors might have better long-term clinical outcomes.

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction

Despite an improvement in pharmacological therapies and mechanical reperfusion, the outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is still suboptimal, especially in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). The incidence of CS accounts for 3-15% of AMI cases, with mortality rates of 40% to 50%. In contrast to a large number of trials conducted in patients with AMI without CS, there is limited evidence-based scientific knowledge in the CS setting. Therefore, recommendations and actual treatments are often based on registry data. Similarly, knowledge of the available options in terms of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices is not equally widespread, leading to an underutilisation or even overutilisation in different regions/countries of these treatment options and nonuniformity in the management of CS. The aim of this article is to provide a critical overview of the available literature on the management of CS as a complication of AMI, summarising the most recent evidence on revascularisation strategies, pharmacological treatments and MCS use.

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.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock: Results of the ECMO-CS Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly being used for circulatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock, although the evidence supporting its use in this context remains insufficient. The ECMO-CS trial (Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock) aimed to compare immediate implementation of VA-ECMO versus an initially conservative therapy (allowing downstream use of VA-ECMO) in patients with rapidly deteriorating or severe cardiogenic shock.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, investigator-initiated, academic clinical trial included patients with either rapidly deteriorating or severe cardiogenic shock. Patients were randomly assigned to immediate VA-ECMO or no immediate VA-ECMO. Other diagnostic and therapeutic procedures were performed as per current standards of care. In the early conservative group, VA-ECMO could be used downstream in case of worsening hemodynamic status. The primary end point was the composite of death from any cause, resuscitated circulatory arrest, and implementation of another mechanical circulatory support device at 30 days.

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients were randomized; after excluding 5 patients because of the absence of informed consent, 117 subjects were included in the analysis, of whom 58 were randomized to immediate VA-ECMO and 59 to no immediate VA-ECMO. The composite primary end point occurred in 37 (63.8%) and 42 (71.2%) patients in the immediate VA-ECMO and the no early VA-ECMO groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.46-1.12]; P=0.21). VA-ECMO was used in 23 (39%) of no early VA-ECMO patients. The 30-day incidence of resuscitated cardiac arrest (10.3.% versus 13.6%; risk difference, -3.2 [95% CI, -15.0 to 8.5]), all-cause mortality (50.0% versus 47.5%; risk difference, 2.5 [95% CI, -15.6 to 20.7]), serious adverse events (60.3% versus 61.0%; risk difference, -0.7 [95% CI, -18.4 to 17.0]), sepsis, pneumonia, stroke, leg ischemia, and bleeding was not statistically different between the immediate VA-ECMO and the no immediate VA-ECMO groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate implementation of VA-ECMO in patients with rapidly deteriorating or severe cardiogenic shock did not improve clinical outcomes compared with an early conservative strategy that permitted downstream use of VA-ECMO in case of worsening hemodynamic status.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT02301819.

Mechanical circulatory support in refractory cardiogenic shock: retrospective register study

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is one of the main causes of death in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Mortality from CS remains high, despite the introduction of myocardial revascularization and the use of modern medication. The use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is promising, it could reduce mortality in patients with AMI and CS. Aim. To define effectiveness and safety of MCS in patients with AMI and CS. Materials and methods. Our study includes 47 patients with AMI and refractory CS, who were treated at the University Clinic of Cardiology of the Yevdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry from 2019 to 2022. Mortality and various complications were analyzed in patients with refractory CS, patients who received and did not receive mechanical circulatory support (intra-aortic balloon pump IABP, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ECMO). Results. Mortality among patients with refractory CS was significantly lower in the subgroup of patients who received mechanical circulatory support devices (59% vs 93%; p=0.02). Moreover, reliability is achieved mainly due to patients in whom were VA-ECMO implanted (p=0.02), not IABP (p=0.16). Conclusion. VA-ECMO associated with reduced mortality and should be considered in patients with AMI and refractory CS. Further research is needed to select the optimal method of mechanical circulatory support in patients with CS.

Effects and safety of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the treatment of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

There is a lack of large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that comprehensively evaluate the effects of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO)- assisted treatment of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) combined with Cardiogenic shock (CS). This meta-analysis aims to identify predictors of short-term mortality, and the incidence of various complications in patients with STEMI and CS treated with V-A ECMO.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Wanfang Database from 2008 to January 2022 for studies evaluating patients with STEMI and CS treated with V-A ECMO. Studies that reported on mortality in ≥ 10 adult (>18 years) patients were included. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used by two independent reviewers to assess methodological quality. Mantel-Haenszel models were used to pool the data for meta-analysis.

Results

Sixteen studies (1,162 patients) were included with a pooled mortality estimate of 50.9%. Age > 65 years, BMI > 25 kg/m², lactate > 8 mmol/L, anterior wall infarction, longer CPR time, and longer time from arrest to extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) were risk predictors of mortality. Achieving TIMI-3 flow after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was a protective factor of mortality. The prevalence of bleeding, cerebral infarction, leg ischemia, and renal failure were 22, 9.9, 7.4, and 49.4%, respectively.

Conclusion

Our study identified Age, BMI, lactate, anterior wall infarction, TIMI-3 flow after PCI, CPR time, and time from arrest to ECPR significantly influence mortality in STEMI patients with CS requiring V-A ECMO. These factors may help clinicians to detect patients with poor prognoses earlier and develop new mortality prediction models.

Akute Herzinsuffizienz und kardiogener Schock – Bedeutung der ECLS

Der kardiogene Schock (CS) stellt den schwersten Verlauf einer akuten Herzinsuffizienz (AHF) mit exzessiven Letalitätsraten von bis zu 50% dar. Bei refraktärem Verlauf bieten temporäre mechanische Kreislaufunterstützungssysteme eine wertvolle Therapieoption. Insbesondere die ECLS-Therapie (extracorporeal life support) wird dem klinischen Bedarf entsprechend, trotz bislang fehlender Evidenz aus randomisiert-kontrollierten Studien, zunehmend häufiger bei CS eingesetzt. Vor diesem Hintergrund muss die ECLS-Indikation weiterhin unter kritischer Nutzen-Risiko-Abwägung und unter Berücksichtigung objektiver hämodynamischer sowie patientenbezogener klinischer Parameter gestellt werden. Aktuelle Leitlinien empfehlen ferner die Etablierung von CS-Zentren mit strukturierten Therapiekonzepten und eingespielten Teams. In diesem Artikel werden grundlegende pathophysiologische Konzepte und Therapieansätze der AHF und des CS beleuchtet und der Stellenwert der ECLS in diesem Setting eingeordnet.