Impella use in real-world cardiogenic shock patients: Sobering outcomes

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.

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.