IMPELLA VERSUS EXTRACORPOREAL MEMBRANE OXYGENATION IN CARDIOGENIC SHOCK: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.
Journal
Shock (Augusta, Ga.)
ISSN: 1540-0514
Titre abrégé: Shock
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9421564
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 11 2022
01 11 2022
Historique:
entrez:
29
11
2022
pubmed:
30
11
2022
medline:
2
12
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36445229
doi: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000001996
pii: 00024382-202211000-00001
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
349-357Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 by the Shock Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
van Diepen S, Katz JN, Albert NM, Henry TD, Jacobs AK, Kapur NK, Kilic A, Menon V, Ohman M, Sweitzer NK, et al.: Contemporary management of cardiogenic shock: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 136(16):e232–e268, 2017.
Naidu SS: Novel percutaneous cardiac assist devices. Circulation 123(5):533–543, 2011.
Rihal CS, Naidu SS, Givertz MM, Szeto WY, Burke JA, Kapur NK, Kern M, Garratt KN, Goldstein JA, Dimas V, et al.: 2015 SCAI/ACC/HFSA/STS clinical expert consensus statement on the use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiovascular care. J Am Coll Cardiol 65(19):e7–e26, 2015.
Upadhyay R, Alrayes H, Arno S, Kaushik M, Basir MB: Current landscape of temporary percutaneous mechanical circulatory support technology. US Cardiol Rev 15:2021.
Nersesian G, Hennig F, Müller M, Mulzer J, Tsyganenko D, Starck C, Gromann T, Falk V, Potapov E, Schoenrath F: Temporary mechanical circulatory support for refractory heart failure: the German Heart Center Berlin experience. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 8(1):76–83, 2019.
Shah M, Patnaik S, Patel B, Ram P, Garg L, Agarwal M, Agrawal S, Arora S, Patel N, Wald J, et al.: Trends in mechanical circulatory support use and hospital mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction and non-infarction related cardiogenic shock in the United States. Clin Res Cardiol 107(4):287–303, 2018.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA; PRISMA-P Group: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 4:1, 2015.
Lamarche Y, Cheung A, Ignaszewski A, Higgins J, Kaan A, Griesdale DE, Moss R: Comparative outcomes in cardiogenic shock patients managed with Impella microaxial pump or extracorporeal life support. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 142(1):60–65, 2011.
Chamogeorgakis T, Rafael A, Shafii AE, Nagpal D, Pokersnik JA, Gonzalez-Stawinski GV: Which is better: a miniaturized percutaneous ventricular assist device or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for patients with cardiogenic shock? ASAIO J 59(6):607–611, 2013.
Mourad M, Gaudard P, De La Arena P, Eliet J, Zeroual N, Rouvière P, Roubille F, Albat B, Colson PH: Circulatory support with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and/or impella for cardiogenic shock during myocardial infarction. ASAIO J 64(6):708–714, 2018.
Schiller P, Hellgren L, Vikholm P: Survival after refractory cardiogenic shock is comparable in patients with Impella and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation when adjusted for SAVE score. Eur Hear J Acute Cardiovasc Care 8(4):329–337, 2019.
Karami M, den Uil CA, Ouweneel DM, Scholte NTB, Engström AE, Akin S, Lagrand WK, Vlaar APJ, Jewbali LS, Henriques JPS: Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction: Impella CP/5.0 versus ECMO. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 9(2):164–172, 2019.
Karatolios K, Chatzis G, Markus B, Luesebrink U, Ahrens H, Divchev D, Syntila S, Jerrentrup A, Schieffer B: Comparison of mechanical circulatory support with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or Impella for patients with cardiogenic shock: a propensity-matched analysis. Clin Res Cardiol 110(9):1404–1411, 2021.
Lemor A, Hosseini Dehkordi SH, Basir MB, Villablanca PA, Jain T, Koenig GC, Alaswad K, Moses JW, Kapur NK, O'Neill W: Impella versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 21(12):1465–1471, 2020.
Schurtz G, Rousse N, Saura O, Balmette V, Vincent F, Lamblin N, Porouchani S, Verdier B, Puymirat E, Robin E, et al.: Impella® or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for left ventricular dominant refractory cardiogenic shock. J Clin Med 10(4):1–13, 2021.
Syntila S, Chatzis G, Markus B, Ahrens H, Waechter C, Luesebrink U, Divchev D, Schuett H, Tsalouchidou PE, Jerrentrup A, et al.: Comparison of mechanical support with Impella or extracorporeal life support in post-cardiac arrest cardiogenic shock: a propensity scoring matching analysis. J Clin Med 10(16):1–12, 2021.
Wernly B, Karami M, Engström AE, Windecker S, Hunziker L, Lüscher TF, Henriques JP, Ferrari MW, Binnebößel S, Masyuk M, et al.: Impella versus extracorporal life support in cardiogenic shock: a propensity score adjusted analysis. ESC Hear Fail 8(2):953–961, 2021.
Werdan K, Gielen S, Ebelt H, Hochman JS: Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J 35(3):156–167, 2014.
Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, Ferenc M, Olbrich HG, Hausleiter J, Richardt G, Hennersdorf M, Empen K, Fuernau G, et al.: Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 367(14):1287–1296, 2012.
Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE Jr., Drazner MH, Fonarow GC, Geraci SA, Horwich T, Januzzi JL, et al.: ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure. Circulation 128(16):2013, 2013.
Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, et al.: 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J 35(37):2541–2619, 2014.
Basir MB, Schreiber T, Dixon S, Alaswad K, Patel K, Almany S, Khandelwal A, Hanson I, George A, Ashbrook M, et al.: Feasibility of early mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the Detroit cardiogenic shock initiative. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 91(3):454–461, 2018.
Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, Pagani FD, Kormos RL, Stevenson LW, Blume ED, Myers SL, Miller MA, Baldwin JT, Young JB: Seventh INTERMACS annual report: 15,000 patients and counting. J Hear Lung Transplant 34(12):1495–1504, 2015.
Esposito ML, Zhang Y, Qiao X, Reyelt L, Paruchuri V, Schnitzler GR, Morine KJ, Annamalai SK, Bogins C, Natov PS, et al.: Left ventricular unloading before reperfusion promotes functional recovery after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 72(5):501–514, 2018.
Loehn T, O'Neill WW, Lange B, Pfluecke C, Schweigler T, Mierke J, Waessnig N, Mahlmann A, Youssef A, Speiser U, et al.: Long term survival after early unloading with Impella CP ® in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Eur. Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 9(2):149–157, 2020.
O’Neill WW, Grines C, Schreiber T, Moses J, Maini B, Dixon XR, Ohman EM: Analysis of outcomes for 15,259 US patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMICS) supported with the Impella device Device. Am Heart J 202:33–38, 2018.
Aubron C, Cheng AC, Pilcher D, Leong T, Magrin G, Cooper DJ, Scheinkestel C, Pellegrino V: Factors associated with outcomes of patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support: a 5-year cohort study. Crit Care 17(2):R73, 2013.
Le Guennec L, Cholet C, Huang F, Schmidt M, Bréchot N, Hékimian G, Besset S, Lebreton G, Nieszkowska A, Leprince P, et al.: Ischemic and hemorrhagic brain injury during venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Ann Intensive Care 8(1):129, 2018.
Olson SR, Murphree CR, Zonies D, Meyer AD, Mccarty OJT, Deloughery TG, Shatzel JJ: Thrombosis and bleeding in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) without anticoagulation: a systematic review. ASAIO J 67(3):290–296, 2021.
Pineton de Chambrun M, Bréchot N, Lebreton G, Schmidt M, Hekimian G, Demondion P, Trouillet JL, Leprince P, Chastre J, Combes A, et al.: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory cardiogenic shock post-cardiac arrest. Intensive Care Med . 42(12):1999–2007, 2016.
Dhruva SS, Ross JS, Mortazavi BJ, Hurley NC, Krumholz HM, Curtis JP, Berkowitz A, Masoudi FA, Messenger JC, Parzynski CS, et al.: Association of use of an intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist device vs intra-aortic balloon pump with in-hospital mortality and major bleeding among patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. JAMA 323(8):734, 2020.
Ouweneel DM, de Brabander J, Karami M, Sjauw KD, Engström AE, Vis MM, Wykrzykowska JJ, Beijk MA, Koch KT, Baan J, et al.: Real-life use of left ventricular circulatory support with Impella in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: 12 years AMC experience. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 8(4):338–349, 2019.
Schrage B, Ibrahim K, Loehn T, Werner N, Sinning JM, Pappalardo F, Pieri M, Skurk C, Lauten A, Landmesser U, et al.: Impella support for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Circulation 139(10):1249–1258, 2019.
Aubron C, DePuydt J, Belon F, Bailey M, Schmidt M, Sheldrake J, Murphy D, Scheinkestel C, Cooper DJ, Capellier G, et al.: Predictive factors of bleeding events in adults undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Ann Intensive Care 6(1):97, 2016.
Doyle AJ, Hunt BJ: Current understanding of how extracorporeal membrane oxygenators activate haemostasis and other blood components. Front Med (Lausanne) . 5:352, 2018.
Hireche-Chikaoui H, Grübler MR, Bloch A, Windecker S, Bloechlinger S, Hunziker L: Nonejecting hearts on femoral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Crit Care Med 46(5):e459–e464, 2018.
Rupprecht L, Lunz D, Philipp A, Lubnow M, Schmid C: Pitfalls in percutaneous ECMO cannulation. Heart lung Vessel . 7(4):320–326, 2015.
Kapur NK, Whitehead EH, Thayer KL, Pahuja M: The science of safety: complications associated with the use of mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock and best practices to maximize safety. F1000Res 9:794, 2020.
Randhawa VK, Al-Fares A, Tong MZY, Soltesz EG, Hernandez-Montfort J, Taimeh Z, Weiss AJ, Menon V, Campbell J, Cremer P, et al.: A pragmatic approach to weaning temporary mechanical circulatory support. JACC Heart Fail 9(9):664–673, 2021.