Which is better: a miniaturized percutaneous ventricular assist device or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for patients with cardiogenic shock?

ASAIO J. 2013 Nov-Dec;59(6):607-11. doi: 10.1097/MAT.0b013e3182a8baf7.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes associated with the use of Impella and TandemHeart short-term support devices with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy for postinfarction- or decompensated cardiomyopathy-related cardiogenic shock. Between January 2006 and September 2011, 79 patients were supported with either an Impella axial flow pump (n = 7) or a TandemHeart centrifugal pump (n = 11), or with ECMO (n = 61) therapy for cardiogenic shock in a single institution. Pertinent variables and postprocedural events were analyzed in this cohort of patients using a prospectively maintained clinical database. The in-hospital mortality, successful weaning from mechanical circulatory support, bridge to long-term destination support device and heart transplantation, and limb complications did not differ between the 2 groups based on intention-to-treat analysis. Age was the only independent predictor for in-hospital survival. In this cohort of patients, short-term support devices and ECMO achieved comparable results. In the modern era of medical cost restraints, ECMO may be more cost effective for patients with postinfarction- or decompensated cardiomyopathy-related cardiogenic shock. Larger randomized trials may be necessary to further elucidate this topic.

MeSH terms

  • Age Factors
  • Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation*
  • Female
  • Heart-Assist Devices*
  • Humans
  • Kaplan-Meier Estimate
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Shock, Cardiogenic / mortality*
  • Shock, Cardiogenic / surgery*