Cargando…
Comparison of Mechanical Support with Impella or Extracorporeal Life Support in Post-Cardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock: A Propensity Scoring Matching Analysis
Our aim was to compare the outcomes of Impella with extracorporeal life support (ECLS) in patients with post-cardiac arrest cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This was a retrospective study of patients resuscitated from out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with p...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8396971/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34441879 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163583 |
_version_ | 1783744498001510400 |
---|---|
author | Syntila, Styliani Chatzis, Georgios Markus, Birgit Ahrens, Holger Waechter, Christian Luesebrink, Ulrich Divchev, Dimitar Schuett, Harald Tsalouchidou, Panagiota-Eleni Jerrentrup, Andreas Parahuleva, Mariana Schieffer, Bernhard Karatolios, Konstantinos |
author_facet | Syntila, Styliani Chatzis, Georgios Markus, Birgit Ahrens, Holger Waechter, Christian Luesebrink, Ulrich Divchev, Dimitar Schuett, Harald Tsalouchidou, Panagiota-Eleni Jerrentrup, Andreas Parahuleva, Mariana Schieffer, Bernhard Karatolios, Konstantinos |
author_sort | Syntila, Styliani |
collection | PubMed |
description | Our aim was to compare the outcomes of Impella with extracorporeal life support (ECLS) in patients with post-cardiac arrest cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This was a retrospective study of patients resuscitated from out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with post-cardiac arrest CS following AMI (May 2015 to May 2020). Patients were supported either with Impella 2.5/CP or ECLS. Outcomes were compared using propensity score-matched analysis to account for differences in baseline characteristics between groups. 159 patients were included (Impella, n = 105; ECLS, n = 54). Hospital and 12-month survival rates were comparable in the Impella and the ECLS groups (p = 0.16 and p = 0.3, respectively). After adjustment for baseline differences, both groups demonstrated comparable hospital and 12-month survival (p = 0.36 and p = 0.64, respectively). Impella patients had a significantly greater left ventricle ejection-fraction (LVEF) improvement at 96 h (p < 0.01 vs. p = 0.44 in ECLS) and significantly fewer device-associated complications than ECLS patients (15.2% versus 35.2%, p < 0.01 for relevant access site bleeding, 7.6% versus 20.4%, p = 0.04 for limb ischemia needing intervention). In subgroup analyses, Impella was associated with better survival in patients with lower-risk features (lactate < 8.6 mmol/L, time from collapse to return of spontaneous circulation < 28 min, vasoactive score < 46 and Horowitz index > 182). In conclusion, the use of Impella 2.5/CP or ECLS in post-cardiac arrest CS after AMI was associated with comparable adjusted hospital and 12-month survival. Impella patients had a greater LVEF improvement than ECLS patients. Device-related access-site complications occurred more frequently in patients with ECLS than Impella support. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8396971 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83969712021-08-28 Comparison of Mechanical Support with Impella or Extracorporeal Life Support in Post-Cardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock: A Propensity Scoring Matching Analysis Syntila, Styliani Chatzis, Georgios Markus, Birgit Ahrens, Holger Waechter, Christian Luesebrink, Ulrich Divchev, Dimitar Schuett, Harald Tsalouchidou, Panagiota-Eleni Jerrentrup, Andreas Parahuleva, Mariana Schieffer, Bernhard Karatolios, Konstantinos J Clin Med Article Our aim was to compare the outcomes of Impella with extracorporeal life support (ECLS) in patients with post-cardiac arrest cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This was a retrospective study of patients resuscitated from out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with post-cardiac arrest CS following AMI (May 2015 to May 2020). Patients were supported either with Impella 2.5/CP or ECLS. Outcomes were compared using propensity score-matched analysis to account for differences in baseline characteristics between groups. 159 patients were included (Impella, n = 105; ECLS, n = 54). Hospital and 12-month survival rates were comparable in the Impella and the ECLS groups (p = 0.16 and p = 0.3, respectively). After adjustment for baseline differences, both groups demonstrated comparable hospital and 12-month survival (p = 0.36 and p = 0.64, respectively). Impella patients had a significantly greater left ventricle ejection-fraction (LVEF) improvement at 96 h (p < 0.01 vs. p = 0.44 in ECLS) and significantly fewer device-associated complications than ECLS patients (15.2% versus 35.2%, p < 0.01 for relevant access site bleeding, 7.6% versus 20.4%, p = 0.04 for limb ischemia needing intervention). In subgroup analyses, Impella was associated with better survival in patients with lower-risk features (lactate < 8.6 mmol/L, time from collapse to return of spontaneous circulation < 28 min, vasoactive score < 46 and Horowitz index > 182). In conclusion, the use of Impella 2.5/CP or ECLS in post-cardiac arrest CS after AMI was associated with comparable adjusted hospital and 12-month survival. Impella patients had a greater LVEF improvement than ECLS patients. Device-related access-site complications occurred more frequently in patients with ECLS than Impella support. MDPI 2021-08-14 /pmc/articles/PMC8396971/ /pubmed/34441879 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163583 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Syntila, Styliani Chatzis, Georgios Markus, Birgit Ahrens, Holger Waechter, Christian Luesebrink, Ulrich Divchev, Dimitar Schuett, Harald Tsalouchidou, Panagiota-Eleni Jerrentrup, Andreas Parahuleva, Mariana Schieffer, Bernhard Karatolios, Konstantinos Comparison of Mechanical Support with Impella or Extracorporeal Life Support in Post-Cardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock: A Propensity Scoring Matching Analysis |
title | Comparison of Mechanical Support with Impella or Extracorporeal Life Support in Post-Cardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock: A Propensity Scoring Matching Analysis |
title_full | Comparison of Mechanical Support with Impella or Extracorporeal Life Support in Post-Cardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock: A Propensity Scoring Matching Analysis |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Mechanical Support with Impella or Extracorporeal Life Support in Post-Cardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock: A Propensity Scoring Matching Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Mechanical Support with Impella or Extracorporeal Life Support in Post-Cardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock: A Propensity Scoring Matching Analysis |
title_short | Comparison of Mechanical Support with Impella or Extracorporeal Life Support in Post-Cardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock: A Propensity Scoring Matching Analysis |
title_sort | comparison of mechanical support with impella or extracorporeal life support in post-cardiac arrest cardiogenic shock: a propensity scoring matching analysis |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8396971/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34441879 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163583 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT syntilastyliani comparisonofmechanicalsupportwithimpellaorextracorporeallifesupportinpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockapropensityscoringmatchinganalysis AT chatzisgeorgios comparisonofmechanicalsupportwithimpellaorextracorporeallifesupportinpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockapropensityscoringmatchinganalysis AT markusbirgit comparisonofmechanicalsupportwithimpellaorextracorporeallifesupportinpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockapropensityscoringmatchinganalysis AT ahrensholger comparisonofmechanicalsupportwithimpellaorextracorporeallifesupportinpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockapropensityscoringmatchinganalysis AT waechterchristian comparisonofmechanicalsupportwithimpellaorextracorporeallifesupportinpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockapropensityscoringmatchinganalysis AT luesebrinkulrich comparisonofmechanicalsupportwithimpellaorextracorporeallifesupportinpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockapropensityscoringmatchinganalysis AT divchevdimitar comparisonofmechanicalsupportwithimpellaorextracorporeallifesupportinpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockapropensityscoringmatchinganalysis AT schuettharald comparisonofmechanicalsupportwithimpellaorextracorporeallifesupportinpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockapropensityscoringmatchinganalysis AT tsalouchidoupanagiotaeleni comparisonofmechanicalsupportwithimpellaorextracorporeallifesupportinpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockapropensityscoringmatchinganalysis AT jerrentrupandreas comparisonofmechanicalsupportwithimpellaorextracorporeallifesupportinpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockapropensityscoringmatchinganalysis AT parahulevamariana comparisonofmechanicalsupportwithimpellaorextracorporeallifesupportinpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockapropensityscoringmatchinganalysis AT schiefferbernhard comparisonofmechanicalsupportwithimpellaorextracorporeallifesupportinpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockapropensityscoringmatchinganalysis AT karatolioskonstantinos comparisonofmechanicalsupportwithimpellaorextracorporeallifesupportinpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockapropensityscoringmatchinganalysis |