Comparison of ECMO vs ECpella in Patients With Non-Post-Pericardiotomy Cardiogenic Shock: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Introduction: The impact of Impella and ECMO (ECPELLA) in cardiogenic shock (CS) remains to be defined. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the benefit of ECPELLA compared to VA-ECMO in patients with non post-pericardiotomy CS.

Methods: All studies reporting short term outcomes of ECpella or VA ECMO in non post-pericardiotomy CS were included. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Vascular and bleeding complications and LVAD implantation/heart transplant within 30-days were assessed as secondary outcomes.

Results: Of 407 studies identified, 13 observational studies (13,682 patients, 13,270 with ECMO and 412 with ECpella) were included in this analysis. 30-day mortality was 55.8% (51.6-59.9) in the VA-ECMO group and 58.3% (53.5-63.0) in the ECpella group. At meta-regression analysis the implantation of IABP did not affect mortality in the ECMO group. The rate of major bleeding in patients on VA-ECMO and ECpella support were 21.3% (16.9-26.5) and 33.1% (25.9-41.2) respectively, while the rates of the composite outcome of LVAD implantation and heart transplantation within 30-days in patients on VA-ECMO and ECpella support were 14.4% (9.0-22.2) and 10.8%. When directly compared in 3 studies, ECpella showed a positive effect on 30-day mortality compared to ECMO (OR: 1.81: 1.039-3.159).

Conclusion: Our data suggest that ECpella may reduce 30-day mortality and increase left ventricle recovery, despite increased of bleeding rates.

Keywords: Cardiogenic shock; ECMO; ECpella; Mechanical support.