Background: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used to treat cardiogenic shock. However, VA-ECMO might hamper myocardial recovery. The Impella unloads the left ventricle. The aim of this study was to evaluate if left ventricular unloading in cardiogenic shock patients treated with VA-ECMO was associated with lower mortality. Methods: Data from 686 consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO with or without left ventricular unloading (using an Impella) at 16 tertiary-care centers in 4 countries were collected. The association between left ventricular unloading and 30-day mortality was assessed by Cox regression models in a 1:1 propensity-score-matched cohort. Results: Left ventricular unloading was used in 337 of the 686 patients (49%). After matching, 255 patients with left ventricular unloading were compared with 255 patients without left ventricular unloading. In the matched cohort, left ventricular unloading was associated with lower 30-day mortality (hazard ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.63-0.98, p=0.03) without differences in various subgroups. Complications occurred more frequently in patients with left ventricular unloading; e.g. severe bleeding in 98 (38.4%) vs. 45 (17.9%), access-site related ischemia in 55 (21.6%) vs. 31 (12.3%), abdominal compartment in 23 (9.4%) vs. 9 (3.7%) and renal replacement therapy in 148 (58.5%) vs. 99 (39.1%). Conclusions: In this international, multicenter cohort study, left ventricular unloading was associated with lower mortality in cardiogenic shock patients treated with VA-ECMO, despite higher complication rates. These findings support use of left ventricular unloading in cardiogenic shock patients treated with VA-ECMO and call for further validation, ideally in a randomized, controlled trial.

IntroductionCardiogenic shock refractory to standard therapy with inotropes and/or intra-aortic balloon pump is accompanied with an unacceptable high mortality. Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices may provide a survival benefit for these very sick patients. In this study, we describe our experience with the Impella 5.0 device used in the setting of refractory cardiogenic shock.MethodsIn this observational, retrospective, single-center study we included all the consecutive patients supported with Impella 5.0, between May 2008 and December 2013, for refractory cardiogenic shock. Patients’ baseline and procedural characteristics, hemodynamics and outcome to the first 48 h of support, to ICU discharge and day-28 visit were collected.ResultsA total of 40 patients were included in the study. Median age was 57 years and 87.5 % were male. Cardiogenic shock resulted from acute myocardial infarction in 17 patients (43 %), dilated cardiomyopathy in 12 (30 %) and postcardiotomy cardiac failure in 7 (18 %). In 15 patients Impella 5.0 was added to an ECMO to unload the left ventricle. The median SOFA score for the entire cohort prior to circulatory support was 12 [10–14] and the duration of Impella support was 7 [5–10] days. We observed a significant decrease of the inotrope score (10 [1–17] vs. 1 [0–9]; p = 0.04) and the lactate values (3.8 [1.7–5.9] mmol/L vs. 2.5 [1.5–3.4] mmol/L; p = 0.01) after 6 h of support with Impella 5.0. Furthermore, at Impella removal the patients’ left ventricular ejection fraction improved significantly (p < 0.001) when compared to baseline. Cardiac recovery, bridge to left ventricular assist device or heart transplantation was possible in 28 patients (70 %). Twenty-six patients (65 %) survived at day 28. A multivariate analysis showed a higher risk of mortality for patients with acute myocardial infarction (hazard ratio = 4.1 (1.2–14.2); p = 0.02).ConclusionsImpella 5.0 allowed fast weaning of inotropes and might facilitate myocardial recovery. Despite high severity scores at admission, day-28 mortality rate was better than predicated.

Early diastolic dysfunction is a strong and independent predictor of mortality in cancer patients presenting with septic shock. It is not associated with exposure to cardiotoxic drugs. Further studies incorporating monitoring of diastolic function and therapeutic interventions improving cardiac relaxation need to be evaluated in cancer patients presenting with septic shock.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support (TCS) is recommended for patients with profound cardiogenic shock (CS). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and Impella are possible TCS devices, but the device choice and the implantation timing are not definitely established, specifically during acute myocardial infarction. We have analyzed the respective use of ECMO or Impella (2.5, CP, or 5.0) for CS following acute myocardial infarction, from a cohort of patients who underwent TCS within 72 hours after admission for emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from January 2009 to April 2015. Among 88 TCS-treated patients, 42 had early TCS: 23 ECMO and 19 Impella. Cardiac management, including PCI, was similar between the two groups, but ECMO patients were sicker than Impella patients (higher blood lactate level at ICU admission, higher vasoactive-inotroic and ENCOURAGE scores before TCS implantation, p ≤ 0.02). Three patients (7%) have had TCS implantation before admission, but TCS was implanted mostly in cathlab (43%, 1 during PCI, 13 just after PCI) or soon after ICU admission (50%, n = 21). Modification of the initial TCS choice was required in 10 cases (24%) for assistance upgrading in case of Impella (n = 4) or for left ventricle unloading in case of ECMO (n = 6). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is the technique of choice in case of profound CS, whereas Impella devices seem more appropriate for less severe hemodynamic compromise. Interestingly, the combination of both techniques may help to overcome the limits inherent to each device.

No abstract