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. 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

Extracorporeal life support system during cardiovascular procedures: Insights from the German Lifebridge registry

Abstract The frequency of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device application has increased in recent years. Besides implantation in the emergency setting, such as circulatory arrest, MCS is also increasingly used electively to ensure hemodynamic stability in high‐risk patients, for example, during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), valve interventions or off‐pump coronary bypass surgery. Lifebridge (Zoll Medical GmbH, Germany) is a compact percutaneous MCS device widely used in daily clinical routine. The present study aimed to investigate the indications, feasibility, and outcomes after use of Lifebridge in cardiac interventions, evaluating a large‐scale multicenter database. A total of 60 tertiary cardiovascular centers were questioned regarding application and short‐term outcomes after the use of the Lifebridge system (n = 160 patients). Out of these 60 centers, eight consented to participate in the study (n = 39 patients), where detailed data were collected using standardized questionnaires. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the patient population, procedural as well as follow‐up data were recorded and analyzed. In 60 interrogated centers, Lifebridge was used in 74% of emergency cases and 26% in the setting of planned interventions. The subcohort interrogated in detail displayed the same distribution of application scenarios, while the main cardiovascular procedure was high‐risk PCI (82%). All patients were successfully weaned from the device and 92% (n = 36) of the patients studied in detail survived after 30 days. As assessed 30 days after insertion of the device, bleeding requiring red blood cell (RBC) transfusion constituted the main complication, occurring in 49% of cases. In our analysis of clinical data, the use of Lifebridge in cardiac intervention was shown to be feasible. Further prospective studies are warranted to identify patients who benefit from hemodynamic MCS support despite the increased rate of RBC transfusion due to challenges in access sites during cardiovascular procedures