Cargando…

Impella versus extracorporal life support in cardiogenic shock: a propensity score adjusted analysis

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. METHO...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wernly, Bernhard, Karami, Mina, Engström, Annemarie E., Windecker, Stephan, Hunziker, Lukas, Lüscher, Thomas F., Henriques, Jose P., Ferrari, Markus W., Binnebößel, Stephan, Masyuk, Maryna, Niederseer, David, Abel, Peter, Fuernau, Georg, Franz, Marcus, Kelm, Malte, Busch, Mathias C., Felix, Stephan B., Thiele, Holger, Lauten, Alexander, Jung, Christian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8006691/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33560591
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13200
_version_ 1783672357099929600
author Wernly, Bernhard
Karami, Mina
Engström, Annemarie E.
Windecker, Stephan
Hunziker, Lukas
Lüscher, Thomas F.
Henriques, Jose P.
Ferrari, Markus W.
Binnebößel, Stephan
Masyuk, Maryna
Niederseer, David
Abel, Peter
Fuernau, Georg
Franz, Marcus
Kelm, Malte
Busch, Mathias C.
Felix, Stephan B.
Thiele, Holger
Lauten, Alexander
Jung, Christian
author_facet Wernly, Bernhard
Karami, Mina
Engström, Annemarie E.
Windecker, Stephan
Hunziker, Lukas
Lüscher, Thomas F.
Henriques, Jose P.
Ferrari, Markus W.
Binnebößel, Stephan
Masyuk, Maryna
Niederseer, David
Abel, Peter
Fuernau, Georg
Franz, Marcus
Kelm, Malte
Busch, Mathias C.
Felix, Stephan B.
Thiele, Holger
Lauten, Alexander
Jung, Christian
author_sort Wernly, Bernhard
collection PubMed
description 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 < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In CS patients, the adjusted mortality rates of both ECLS and Impella were high and similar. The baseline lactate level was a potent predictor of mortality and could play a role in patient selection for therapy in future studies. In patients with profound CS, the type of device is likely to be less important compared with other parameters including non‐cardiac and neurological factors.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8006691
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80066912021-04-01 Impella versus extracorporal life support in cardiogenic shock: a propensity score adjusted analysis Wernly, Bernhard Karami, Mina Engström, Annemarie E. Windecker, Stephan Hunziker, Lukas Lüscher, Thomas F. Henriques, Jose P. Ferrari, Markus W. Binnebößel, Stephan Masyuk, Maryna Niederseer, David Abel, Peter Fuernau, Georg Franz, Marcus Kelm, Malte Busch, Mathias C. Felix, Stephan B. Thiele, Holger Lauten, Alexander Jung, Christian ESC Heart Fail Original Research Articles 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 < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In CS patients, the adjusted mortality rates of both ECLS and Impella were high and similar. The baseline lactate level was a potent predictor of mortality and could play a role in patient selection for therapy in future studies. In patients with profound CS, the type of device is likely to be less important compared with other parameters including non‐cardiac and neurological factors. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-02-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8006691/ /pubmed/33560591 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13200 Text en © 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Research Articles
Wernly, Bernhard
Karami, Mina
Engström, Annemarie E.
Windecker, Stephan
Hunziker, Lukas
Lüscher, Thomas F.
Henriques, Jose P.
Ferrari, Markus W.
Binnebößel, Stephan
Masyuk, Maryna
Niederseer, David
Abel, Peter
Fuernau, Georg
Franz, Marcus
Kelm, Malte
Busch, Mathias C.
Felix, Stephan B.
Thiele, Holger
Lauten, Alexander
Jung, Christian
Impella versus extracorporal life support in cardiogenic shock: a propensity score adjusted analysis
title Impella versus extracorporal life support in cardiogenic shock: a propensity score adjusted analysis
title_full Impella versus extracorporal life support in cardiogenic shock: a propensity score adjusted analysis
title_fullStr Impella versus extracorporal life support in cardiogenic shock: a propensity score adjusted analysis
title_full_unstemmed Impella versus extracorporal life support in cardiogenic shock: a propensity score adjusted analysis
title_short Impella versus extracorporal life support in cardiogenic shock: a propensity score adjusted analysis
title_sort impella versus extracorporal life support in cardiogenic shock: a propensity score adjusted analysis
topic Original Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8006691/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33560591
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13200
work_keys_str_mv AT wernlybernhard impellaversusextracorporallifesupportincardiogenicshockapropensityscoreadjustedanalysis
AT karamimina impellaversusextracorporallifesupportincardiogenicshockapropensityscoreadjustedanalysis
AT engstromannemariee impellaversusextracorporallifesupportincardiogenicshockapropensityscoreadjustedanalysis
AT windeckerstephan impellaversusextracorporallifesupportincardiogenicshockapropensityscoreadjustedanalysis
AT hunzikerlukas impellaversusextracorporallifesupportincardiogenicshockapropensityscoreadjustedanalysis
AT luscherthomasf impellaversusextracorporallifesupportincardiogenicshockapropensityscoreadjustedanalysis
AT henriquesjosep impellaversusextracorporallifesupportincardiogenicshockapropensityscoreadjustedanalysis
AT ferrarimarkusw impellaversusextracorporallifesupportincardiogenicshockapropensityscoreadjustedanalysis
AT binneboßelstephan impellaversusextracorporallifesupportincardiogenicshockapropensityscoreadjustedanalysis
AT masyukmaryna impellaversusextracorporallifesupportincardiogenicshockapropensityscoreadjustedanalysis
AT niederseerdavid impellaversusextracorporallifesupportincardiogenicshockapropensityscoreadjustedanalysis
AT abelpeter impellaversusextracorporallifesupportincardiogenicshockapropensityscoreadjustedanalysis
AT fuernaugeorg impellaversusextracorporallifesupportincardiogenicshockapropensityscoreadjustedanalysis
AT franzmarcus impellaversusextracorporallifesupportincardiogenicshockapropensityscoreadjustedanalysis
AT kelmmalte impellaversusextracorporallifesupportincardiogenicshockapropensityscoreadjustedanalysis
AT buschmathiasc impellaversusextracorporallifesupportincardiogenicshockapropensityscoreadjustedanalysis
AT felixstephanb impellaversusextracorporallifesupportincardiogenicshockapropensityscoreadjustedanalysis
AT thieleholger impellaversusextracorporallifesupportincardiogenicshockapropensityscoreadjustedanalysis
AT lautenalexander impellaversusextracorporallifesupportincardiogenicshockapropensityscoreadjustedanalysis
AT jungchristian impellaversusextracorporallifesupportincardiogenicshockapropensityscoreadjustedanalysis