Key result
Combining MFP and VA-ECMO linked to ~133% higher bleeding risk versus either device alone.
Why the study?
Active mechanical circulatory support is associated with high complication rates, and reducing device-related complications may improve outcomes in infarct-related cardiogenic shock.
Does the combined use of microaxial flow pump and VA-ECMO increase complication rates compared to single device use in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock?
Cohort (n=241)
Yes
Does the combined use of microaxial flow pump and VA-ECMO increase complication rates compared to single device use in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock?
In patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock, the combined use of a microaxial flow pump and VA-ECMO is associated with significantly higher bleeding complications compared to single device use.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Warrants caution with combined MFP and VA-ECMO due to bleeding; leaves open optimal MCS strategy in infarct-related shock.
BACKGROUND: Active mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is associated with high complication rates. Reducing device-related complications may improve outcomes in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). This study aims to provide in-depth insight in the occurrence, specification and timing of complications in patients receiving active MCS, providing valuable starting points for clinical practice and future studies to reduce complications. METHODS: This real-world, multicentre study, using data from the Netherlands Heart Registration PCI-Registry, describes AMI-CS patients that underwent PCI and received MCS between 2017 and 2021 across 9 Dutch hospitals. RESULTS: This registry included 241 patients with a mean age of 59.7 years and predominantly male (78.0 %). Microaxial flow pump (MFP), VA-ECMO and MFP + VA-ECMO were used in 93 (38.6 %), 121 (50.2 %) and 27 (11.2 %) patients. MFP + VA-ECMO was associated with highest complication rates, particularly bleeding events (67 % vs. MFP: 33 % vs. VA-ECMO: 40 %). Differences in bleeding events persisted while accounting for competing risk of death (subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) MFP + VA-ECMO vs. MFP: 2.33 [1.33-4.07]; SHR MFP + VA-ECMO vs. VA-ECMO: 2.00 [1.19-3.36]). SHR for VA-ECMO vs. MFP was 1.18 [0.74-1.90]). Bleeding events were observed within the first days of support, but also on the day of explant and thereafter. Access-site related bleeding events accounted for 51 % of all bleeding events. CONCLUSIONS: Combined use of MFP and VA-ECMO was associated with higher complication rates, particularly bleeding events, compared to single device use. Complication rates between MFP and VA-ECMO were not significantly different. Importantly, patients are still at risk for bleeding events during and after explant of MCS devices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Griffioen et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Infarct-related cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) (n=241). Microaxial flow pump (MFP) + VA-ECMO vs. Microaxial flow pump (MFP) alone was evaluated on Bleeding events (SHR 2.33, 95% CI 1.33-4.07). Combined use of a microaxial flow pump and VA-ECMO in infarct-related cardiogenic shock was associated with higher bleeding rates compared to MFP or VA-ECMO alone.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: