Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is increasingly used in patients during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock, to support both cardiac and pulmonary function. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing mortality in patients treated with and without ECLS support in the setting of refractory cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the publisher subset of PubMed updated to December 2015. Thirteen studies were included of which nine included cardiac arrest patients (n = 3098) and four included patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction (n = 235). Data were pooled by a Mantel-Haenzel random effects model and heterogeneity was examined by the I 2 statistic. RESULTS: In cardiac arrest, the use of ECLS was associated with an absolute increase of 30 days survival of 13 % compared with patients in which ECLS was not used [95 % CI 6-20 %; p < 0.001; number needed to treat (NNT) 7.7] and a higher rate of favourable neurological outcome at 30 days (absolute risk difference 14 %; 95 % CI 7-20 %; p < 0.0001; NNT 7.1). Propensity matched analysis, including 5 studies and 438 patients (219 in both groups), showed similar results. In cardiogenic shock, ECLS showed a 33 % higher 30-day survival compared with IABP (95 % CI, 14-52 %; p < 0.001; NNT 13) but no difference when compared with TandemHeart/Impella (-3 %; 95 % CI -21 to 14 %; p = 0.70; NNH 33). CONCLUSIONS: In cardiac arrest, the use of ECLS was associated with an increased survival rate as well as an increase in favourable neurological outcome. In the setting of cardiogenic shock there was an increased survival with ECLS compared with IABP.

Mechanical circulatory support with the Impella 5.0 device for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock: a three-center experience.

AIM: Postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS) is associated with high mortality rates, despite full conventional treatment. Although the results of treatment with surgically implantable ventricular assist devices have been encouraging, the invasiveness of this treatment limits its applicability. Several less invasive devices have been developed, including the Impella system. The objective of this study was to describe our three-center experience with the Impella 5.0 device in the setting of PCCS. METHODS: From January 2004 through December 2010, a total of 46 patients were diagnosed with treatment-refractory PCCS and treated with the Impella 5.0 percutaneous left ventricular assist device at three european heart centers. Baseline and follow-up characteristics were collected retrospectively and entered into a dedicated database. RESULTS: Within the study cohort of 46 patients, mean logistic and additive EuroSCORES were 24 ± 19 and 10 ± 4. The majority of patients underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (48%) or combined surgery (33%). Half of all patients had been treated with an intra-aortic balloon pump before 5.0-implantation, 1 patient had been treated with an Impella 2.5 device. All patients were on mechanical ventilation and intravenous inotropes. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall 30-day survival was 39.5%. CONCLUSION: Thirty-day survival rates for patients with PCCS, refractory to aggressive conventional treatment and treated with the Impella 5.0 device, are comparable to those reported in studies evaluating surgically implantable VADs, whereas the Impella system is much less invasive. Therefore, mechanical circulatory support with the Impella 5.0 device is a suitable treatment modality for patients with severe PCCS.

Efficacy and timing of intra-aortic counterpulsation in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines strongly recommend additional intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) therapy in STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, there is no randomised evidence suggesting survival benefit of IABP treatment in CS. It is suggested that timing of initiation of IABP therapy could be of great importance. Therefore, we compared mortality rates of IABP therapy versus no IABP therapy in the setting of STEMI complicated by CS. In addition, we investigated the effect of initiation of IABP therapy on mortality. METHODS: From a cohort of 292 STEMI patients with CS treated by primary PCI, 199 patients received IABP therapy (IABP group) and 93 patients received no support (no IABP group). The IABP group was divided into two subgroups based on timing of initiation of support, i.e. 'IABP pre PCI' (n = 59) and 'IABP post PCI' (n = 140). Outcomes were assessed by propensity stratification and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: All-cause 30-day mortality for the IABP versus the no IABP group was 47 % vs. 28 %, respectively, in univariate analysis resulting in an odds ratio (OR) of 1.67 (95%CI, 1.16 to 2.39). However, analyses adjusting outcomes by propensity stratification and logistic regression, respectively, neutralised this OR. In the IABP pre-PCI group vs. the post-PCI group 30-day mortality was 64 % vs. 40 %, resulting in an OR of 1.56 (95 % CI, 1.18 to 2.08). However, after propensity stratification analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis, there were no significant differences in odds of 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: In our cohort of patients with STEMI complicated by CS treated with primary PCI we observed a difference in mortality between those treated with IABP and those treated without IABP in favour of the 'no IABP' group. The mortality difference was eliminated after adjustment for differences in case mix by propensity stratification or by logistic regression analysis. Neither did we observe any difference in mortality between patients whose IABP treatment was initiated before or immediately after PCI.