Key result
ECPELLA linked to ~62% lower 1-year mortality vs. VA-ECMO plus IABP in refractory cardiogenic shock.
Why the study?
The impact of ECPELLA, combining VA-ECMO and Impella, on myocardial damage and outcomes in AMI patients with refractory cardiogenic shock has not been established.
Does ECPELLA improve 1-year mortality and reduce myocardial damage in patients with acute myocardial infarction and refractory cardiogenic shock compared to VA-ECMO with IABP?
Observational (n=90)
No
Does ECPELLA improve 1-year mortality and reduce myocardial damage in patients with acute myocardial infarction and refractory cardiogenic shock compared to VA-ECMO with IABP?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In patients with AMI and refractory cardiogenic shock, ECPELLA (VA-ECMO plus Impella) was associated with significantly lower 1-year mortality and reduced acute-phase myocardial damage compared to VA-ECMO plus IABP.
BACKGROUND: Venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is a vital mechanical circulatory support for treating patients with refractory cardiogenic shock (CS). VA-ECMO can improve end-organ perfusion; however, it increases left ventricular (LV) afterload, resulting in further myocardial damage. ECPELLA, a combination of VA-ECMO and Impella (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA, USA) treatments, is an emerging modality to optimize end-organ perfusion and LV unloading. The impact of ECPELLA in refractory CS has not been established. We aimed to investigate the effects of ECPELLA on acute-phase LV damage and outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and refractory CS and compare them with those of VA-ECMO with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). METHODS: This single-center retrospective observational study included 90 consecutive patients with AMI and refractory CS who received VA-ECMO between January 2012 and December 2022. Of these, 44 and 46 received ECPELLA and VA-ECMO with IABP, respectively. We assessed the serum creatine kinase myocardial band (CK-MB) levels and 1-year mortality. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the baseline characteristics and time from onset to reperfusion between the two groups. Compared with VA-ECMO with IABP, ECPELLA produced lower peak CK-MB levels (265 IU/L vs. 500 IU/L, p = 0.016) and a smaller area under the curve of CK-MB during the first 3 days (274 IU/L × d vs. 534 IU/L × d, p = 0.025). ECPELLA was associated with significantly lower 1-year mortality (64% vs 91%; p = 0.001). Cox proportional hazards analysis revealed that ECPELLA was inversely and independently associated with 1-year mortality (hazard ratio: 0.38, 95% confidence interval: 0.23-0.64; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that ECPELLA may offer myocardial protection and be associated with improved 1-year mortality in patients with AMI and refractory CS. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these observations and better understand the potential benefits of ECPELLA in this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Unoki et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Acute myocardial infarction and refractory cardiogenic shock (n=90). ECPELLA (VA-ECMO and Impella) vs. VA-ECMO with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was evaluated on 1-year mortality (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23-0.64, p=< 0.001). ECPELLA was associated with significantly lower 1-year mortality compared to VA-ECMO with IABP in patients with AMI and refractory cardiogenic shock (64% vs 91%; HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23-0.64; p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: