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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |