Impella compared to Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation In Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis Of Propensity Score Matched Studies.

IF 2.7 3区医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE

SHOCK Pub Date : 2025-02-07 DOI:10.1097/SHK.0000000000002540

Dion Stub, William Chan, Jocasta Ball, Aidan Burell, Josh Ihle, Steven Theng, Stelios Tsintzos, David M Kaye, Tahlia Seage, Mia Mudge

{"title":"Impella compared to Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation In Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis Of Propensity Score Matched Studies.","authors":"Dion Stub, William Chan, Jocasta Ball, Aidan Burell, Josh Ihle, Steven Theng, Stelios Tsintzos, David M Kaye, Tahlia Seage, Mia Mudge","doi":"10.1097/SHK.0000000000002540","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) and Impella, a transluminal microaxial ventricular assist device, are well-established in the management of cardiogenic shock. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs) directly compare Impella versus VA ECMO to inform their safety and efficacy in cardiogenic shock.Purpose: This study aims to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score matched / adjusted studies to compare the clinical outcomes of Impella vs. VA ECMO in cardiogenic shock patients.Methods: A systematic review was undertaken to identify comparative studies of Impella and VA ECMO in cardiogenic shock, which in the absence of RCTs, was limited to observational trials with propensity matched or adjusted outcomes to account for important confounding factors between populations. In-hospital/30-day survival and bleeding events requiring transfusion were meta-analysed using the random effects method.Results: Five propensity score matched/adjusted studies comparing short-term survival following treatment with Impella vs. VA ECMO were included. A statistically significant difference in in-hospital/30-day mortality was detected between patients treated with Impella (39.6%) vs. VA ECMO (53.8%) (odds ratio [OR] 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.57 [0.44, 0.74]; p < 0.0001). Impella was associated with significantly fewer bleeding events requiring transfusion compared with VA ECMO (19.9% vs. 28.8%, respectively) (OR = 0.61 [0.46, 0.80]; p = 0.0004).Conclusion: In the absence of RCTs, this meta-analysis of propensity matched/adjusted observational trials represents the highest level of evidence available to date. Impella was associated with improved short-term survival and decreased bleeding events compared to VA ECMO in patients with cardiogenic shock.","PeriodicalId":21667,"journal":{"name":"SHOCK","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SHOCK","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SHK.0000000000002540","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) and Impella, a transluminal microaxial ventricular assist device, are well-established in the management of cardiogenic shock. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs) directly compare Impella versus VA ECMO to inform their safety and efficacy in cardiogenic shock.

Purpose: This study aims to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score matched / adjusted studies to compare the clinical outcomes of Impella vs. VA ECMO in cardiogenic shock patients.

Methods: A systematic review was undertaken to identify comparative studies of Impella and VA ECMO in cardiogenic shock, which in the absence of RCTs, was limited to observational trials with propensity matched or adjusted outcomes to account for important confounding factors between populations. In-hospital/30-day survival and bleeding events requiring transfusion were meta-analysed using the random effects method.

Results: Five propensity score matched/adjusted studies comparing short-term survival following treatment with Impella vs. VA ECMO were included. A statistically significant difference in in-hospital/30-day mortality was detected between patients treated with Impella (39.6%) vs. VA ECMO (53.8%) (odds ratio [OR] 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.57 [0.44, 0.74]; p < 0.0001). Impella was associated with significantly fewer bleeding events requiring transfusion compared with VA ECMO (19.9% vs. 28.8%, respectively) (OR = 0.61 [0.46, 0.80]; p = 0.0004).

Conclusion: In the absence of RCTs, this meta-analysis of propensity matched/adjusted observational trials represents the highest level of evidence available to date. Impella was associated with improved short-term survival and decreased bleeding events compared to VA ECMO in patients with cardiogenic shock.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

SHOCK 医学-外科

CiteScore

6.20

自引率

3.20%

发文量

199

审稿时长

1 months

期刊介绍： SHOCK®: Injury, Inflammation, and Sepsis: Laboratory and Clinical Approaches includes studies of novel therapeutic approaches, such as immunomodulation, gene therapy, nutrition, and others. The mission of the Journal is to foster and promote multidisciplinary studies, both experimental and clinical in nature, that critically examine the etiology, mechanisms and novel therapeutics of shock-related pathophysiological conditions. Its purpose is to excel as a vehicle for timely publication in the areas of basic and clinical studies of shock, trauma, sepsis, inflammation, ischemia, and related pathobiological states, with particular emphasis on the biologic mechanisms that determine the response to such injury. Making such information available will ultimately facilitate improved care of the traumatized or septic individual.