Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Concomitant Use of VA-ECMO and Impella Support for Cardiogenic Shock.
Modi, Shan P; Hong, Yeahwa; Sicke, McKenzie M; Hess, Nicholas R; Klass, Wyatt J; Ziegler, Luke A; Rivosecchi, Ryan M; Hickey, Gavin W; Kaczorowski, David J; Ramanan, Raj.
Affiliation
  • Modi SP; Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Pittsburgh, PA.
  • Hong Y; Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Pittsburgh, PA.
  • Sicke MM; School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Pittsburgh, PA.
  • Hess NR; Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Pittsburgh, PA.
  • Klass WJ; Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Pittsburgh, PA.
  • Ziegler LA; Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Pittsburgh, PA.
  • Rivosecchi RM; Department of Pharmacy, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Pittsburgh, PA.
  • Hickey GW; Division of Cardiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Pittsburgh, PA.
  • Kaczorowski DJ; Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Pittsburgh, PA.
  • Ramanan R; Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Pittsburgh, PA.
medRxiv ; 2023 Jul 27.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37546750
Background: VA-ECMO with concomitant Impella support (ECpella) is an emerging treatment modality for cardiogenic shock (CS). Survival outcomes by CS etiology with ECpella support have not been well-described. Methods: This study was a retrospective, single-center analysis of patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) or decompensated heart failure (ADHF-CS) supported with ECpella from December 2020 to January 2023. Primary outcomes included 90-day survival post-discharge and destination after support. Secondary outcomes included complications post-ECpella support. Results: A total of 44 patients were included (AMI-CS, n = 20, and ADHF-CS, n = 24). Patients with AMI-CS and ADHF-CS had similar survival 90 days post-discharge (p = .267) with similar destinations after ECpella support (p = .220). Limb ischemia and acute kidney injury occurred more frequently in patients presenting with AMI-CS (p=.013; p = .030). Patients with initial Impella support were more likely to survive ECpella support and be bridged to transplant (p=.033) and less likely to have a cerebrovascular accident (p=.016). Sub-analysis of ADHF-CS patients into acute-on-chronic decompensated heart failure and de novo heart failure demonstrated no difference in survival or destination. Conclusion: ECpella can be used to successfully manage patients with CS. There is no difference in survival or destination for AMI-CS and ADHF-CS in patients with ECpella support. Patients with initial Impella support are more likely to survive ECpella support and bridge to transplant. Future multicenter studies are required to fully analyze the differences between AMI-CS and ADHF-CS with ECpella support.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Clinical_trials Language: En Journal: MedRxiv Year: 2023 Document type: Article Country of publication: United States

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Clinical_trials Language: En Journal: MedRxiv Year: 2023 Document type: Article Country of publication: United States