Impella Versus Intra‐Aortic Balloon Pump in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Treated With Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: An Observational Study

Author:

Yeo Ilhwan123ORCID,Axman Rachel4ORCID,Lu Daniel Y.12ORCID,Feldman Dmitriy N.12,Cheung Jim W.12ORCID,Minutello Robert M.1ORCID,Karas Maria G.1ORCID,Iannacone Erin M.5,Srivastava Ankur6ORCID,Girardi Natalia I.6ORCID,Naka Yoshifumi5,Wong Shing‐Chiu12ORCID,Kim Luke K.12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine New York‐Presbyterian Hospital New York NY

2. Weill Cornell Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Group (CORG) Weill Cornell Medicine New York NY

3. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Mayo Clinic Rochester MN

4. Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine New York‐Presbyterian Hospital New York NY

5. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine New York‐Presbyterian Hospital New York NY

6. Department of Anesthesiology, Weill Cornell Medicine New York‐Presbyterian Hospital New York NY

Abstract

Background Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA‐ECMO) is increasingly used for patients with cardiogenic shock. Although Impella or intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP) is frequently used for left ventricular unloading (LVU) during VA‐ECMO treatment, there are limited data on comparative outcomes. We compared outcomes of Impella and IABP for LVU during VA‐ECMO. Methods and Results Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database between 2016 and 2020, we analyzed outcomes in 3 groups of patients with cardiogenic shock requiring VA‐ECMO based on LVU strategies: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) only, ECMO with IABP, and ECMO with Impella. Of 15 980 patients on VA‐ECMO, IABP and Impella were used in 19.4% and 16.4%, respectively. The proportion of patients receiving Impella significantly increased from 2016 to 2020 (6.5% versus 25.8%; P ‐trend<0.001). In‐hospital mortality was higher with ECMO with Impella (54.8%) compared with ECMO only (50.4%) and ECMO with IABP (48.4%). After adjustment, ECMO with IABP versus ECMO only was associated with lower in‐hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.83; P =0.02). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO only had similar in‐hospital mortality (aOR, 1.09; P =0.695) but was associated with more bleeding (aOR, 1.21; P =0.007) and more acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.42; P <0.001). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO with IABP was associated with greater risk of acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.49; P =0.002), higher in‐hospital mortality (aOR, 1.32; P =0.001), and higher 40‐day mortality (hazard ratio, 1.25; P <0.001). Conclusions In patients with cardiogenic shock on VA‐ECMO, LVU with Impella, particularly with 2.5/CP, was not associated with improved survival at 40 days but was associated with increased adverse events compared with IABP. More data are needed to assess Impella platform‐specific comparative outcomes of LVU.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3