Abstract
Background
Acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMICS) is a severe complication associated with exceedingly high mortality rates. While mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has emerged as a potential intervention, the evidence base for independent MCS use remains weak. In contrast, systematic reviews of observational studies have revealed significant mortality reduction when a combination of MCS was used: VA-ECMO in conjunction with a left ventricular (LV) unloading device (Impella or IABP). The ongoing dilemma concerning the selection between two LV unloading devices (VA-ECMO + Impella vs. VA-ECMO + IABP) warrants further investigation and clarification.
Aim
This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the short-term efficacy and safety of VA-ECMO + Impella versus VA-ECMO + IABP in treatment of AMICS.
Methods
A systematic search was performed on the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases. Studies reporting the short-term (30-day/inpatient) mortality and complications of adult patients with AMICS treated with VA-ECMO + Impella and VA-ECMO + IABP were included. Subgroup analysis was performed including studies with ACS predominant CS (CS etiology 100% by AMI).
Results
Four observational studies with 14,247 patients were included. There was no significant difference in mortality between VA-ECMO + Impella and VA-ECMO + IABP (56.5% vs. 66.5%; OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79−1.02; p = 0.09). However, VA-ECMO + Impella was associated with significantly lower mortality in patients with ACS predominant CS (53.2% vs. 67.7%; OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62−0.85; p < 0.0001). VA-ECMO + Impella was concomitantly associated with a significantly higher risk of complications.
Conclusions
When comparing LV unloading devices in patients with AMICS requiring a combination of MCS, VA-ECMO + Impella was superior in mortality reduction only in the cohort where 100% of CS was caused by AMI.
Acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMICS) is a severe complication associated with exceedingly high mortality rates. While mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has emerged as a potential intervention, the evidence base for independent MCS use remains weak. In contrast, systematic reviews of observational studies have revealed significant mortality reduction when a combination of MCS was used: VA-ECMO in conjunction with a left ventricular (LV) unloading device (Impella or IABP). The ongoing dilemma concerning the selection between two LV unloading devices (VA-ECMO + Impella vs. VA-ECMO + IABP) warrants further investigation and clarification.
Aim
This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the short-term efficacy and safety of VA-ECMO + Impella versus VA-ECMO + IABP in treatment of AMICS.
Methods
A systematic search was performed on the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases. Studies reporting the short-term (30-day/inpatient) mortality and complications of adult patients with AMICS treated with VA-ECMO + Impella and VA-ECMO + IABP were included. Subgroup analysis was performed including studies with ACS predominant CS (CS etiology 100% by AMI).
Results
Four observational studies with 14,247 patients were included. There was no significant difference in mortality between VA-ECMO + Impella and VA-ECMO + IABP (56.5% vs. 66.5%; OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79−1.02; p = 0.09). However, VA-ECMO + Impella was associated with significantly lower mortality in patients with ACS predominant CS (53.2% vs. 67.7%; OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62−0.85; p < 0.0001). VA-ECMO + Impella was concomitantly associated with a significantly higher risk of complications.
Conclusions
When comparing LV unloading devices in patients with AMICS requiring a combination of MCS, VA-ECMO + Impella was superior in mortality reduction only in the cohort where 100% of CS was caused by AMI.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 110-122 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 24 Dec 2024 |
Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)
- acute myocardial infarction
- cardiogenic shock
- impella
- intra‐aortic balloon pump
- microaxial flow pump
- veno‐arterial extracorporealmembrane oxygenation