1. Impella versus extracorporal life support in cardiogenic shock: a propensity score adjusted analysis
- Author
-
Stephan Windecker, Lukas Hunziker, Christian Jung, Annemarie E. Engström, Holger Thiele, Stephan B. Felix, David Niederseer, Thomas F. Lüscher, Markus Ferrari, Alexander Lauten, José P.S. Henriques, Malte Kelm, Maryna Masyuk, Mathias Busch, Marcus Franz, Mina Karami, Stephan Binnebößel, Bernhard Wernly, Georg Fuernau, Peter Abel, Cardiology, Graduate School, ACS - Atherosclerosis & ischemic syndromes, ACS - Pulmonary hypertension & thrombosis, University of Zurich, and Wernly, Bernhard
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,lcsh:Diseases of the circulatory (Cardiovascular) system ,Shock, Cardiogenic ,610 Medicine & health ,030204 cardiovascular system & hematology ,Impella ,2705 Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,Extracorporeal life support ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Mechanical circulatory support ,Original Research Articles ,Internal medicine ,Clinical endpoint ,medicine ,Humans ,Original Research Article ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Propensity Score ,Cardiogenic shock ,Retrospective Studies ,business.industry ,Mortality rate ,Retrospective cohort study ,Odds ratio ,medicine.disease ,Treatment Outcome ,lcsh:RC666-701 ,Heart failure ,Propensity score matching ,10209 Clinic for Cardiology ,Cardiology ,Heart-Assist Devices ,ECMO ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,business - Abstract
AIMS The mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS) is high. The role of specific mechanical circulatory support (MCS) systems is unclear. We aimed to compare patients receiving Impella versus ECLS (extracorporal life support) with regard to baseline characteristics, feasibility, and outcomes in CS. METHODS AND RESULTS This is a retrospective cohort study including CS patients over 18��years with a complete follow-up of the primary endpoint and available baseline lactate level, receiving haemodynamic support either by Impella 2.5 or ECLS from two European registries. The decision for device implementation was made at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary endpoint of this study was all-cause mortality at 30��days. A propensity score for the use of Impella was calculated, and multivariable logistic regression was used to obtain adjusted odds ratios (aOR). In total, 149 patients were included, receiving either Impella (n��=��73) or ECLS (n��=��76) for CS. The feasibility of device implantation was high (87%) and similar (aOR: 3.14; 95% CI: 0.18-56.50; P��=��0.41) with both systems. The rates of vascular injuries (aOR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.10-3.50; P��=��0.56) and bleedings requiring transfusions (aOR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.09-2.10; P��=��0.29) were similar in ECLS patients and Impella patients. The use of Impella or ECLS was not associated with increased odds of mortality (aOR: 4.19; 95% CI: 0.53-33.25; P��=��0.17), after correction for propensity score and baseline lactate level. Baseline lactate level was independently associated with increased odds of 30��day mortality (per mmol/L increase; OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.14-1.45; P��
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF