Abdilahi A Mohamoud, Adnan Khalif, Nadhem Abdallah, Mahmoud Ismayl, Abdirahman Wardhere, Andrew M Goldsweig
{"title":"心脏骤停患者伴或不伴左心室卸荷的静脉体外膜氧合:一项来自美国的全国性分析。","authors":"Abdilahi A Mohamoud, Adnan Khalif, Nadhem Abdallah, Mahmoud Ismayl, Abdirahman Wardhere, Andrew M Goldsweig","doi":"10.1016/j.carrev.2025.09.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) using veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is a promising strategy for refractory cardiac arrest. However, the role of left ventricular (LV) unloading during ECPR remains uncertain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We queried the United States National Inpatient Sample (2016-2021) to identify adult patients with out-of-hospital (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) who received ECPR. Patients were stratified based on the use of either VA-ECMO only or VA-ECMO with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or VA-ECMO with Impella (ECPELLA) for ventricular unloading. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare in-hospital outcomes between the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 6915 patients receiving ECPR, VA-ECMO alone was used in 5147 (74.4 %), VA-ECMO-IABP in 811 (11.7 %), and ECPELLA in 957 (13.9 %). In IHCA patients, ECPELLA was associated with 50 % lower odds of in-hospital mortality compared to VA-ECMO alone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.50, 95 % CI 0.31-0.81, p < 0.01). No significant difference was found in OHCA patients. VA-ECMO-IABP was not associated with a mortality benefit vs. VA-ECMO alone in either OHCA or IHCA.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LV mechanical unloading with ECPELLA was associated with improved survival in IHCA patients but not in OHCA patients compared to VA-ECMO alone. The addition of an IABP to VA-ECMO was not associated with a mortality benefit.</p>","PeriodicalId":47657,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with and without left ventricular unloading in patients with cardiac arrest: A nationwide analysis from the United States.\",\"authors\":\"Abdilahi A Mohamoud, Adnan Khalif, Nadhem Abdallah, Mahmoud Ismayl, Abdirahman Wardhere, Andrew M Goldsweig\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.carrev.2025.09.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) using veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is a promising strategy for refractory cardiac arrest. However, the role of left ventricular (LV) unloading during ECPR remains uncertain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We queried the United States National Inpatient Sample (2016-2021) to identify adult patients with out-of-hospital (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) who received ECPR. Patients were stratified based on the use of either VA-ECMO only or VA-ECMO with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or VA-ECMO with Impella (ECPELLA) for ventricular unloading. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare in-hospital outcomes between the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 6915 patients receiving ECPR, VA-ECMO alone was used in 5147 (74.4 %), VA-ECMO-IABP in 811 (11.7 %), and ECPELLA in 957 (13.9 %). In IHCA patients, ECPELLA was associated with 50 % lower odds of in-hospital mortality compared to VA-ECMO alone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.50, 95 % CI 0.31-0.81, p < 0.01). No significant difference was found in OHCA patients. VA-ECMO-IABP was not associated with a mortality benefit vs. VA-ECMO alone in either OHCA or IHCA.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LV mechanical unloading with ECPELLA was associated with improved survival in IHCA patients but not in OHCA patients compared to VA-ECMO alone. The addition of an IABP to VA-ECMO was not associated with a mortality benefit.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47657,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2025.09.004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2025.09.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:体外心肺复苏(ECPR)采用静脉-动脉体外膜氧合(VA-ECMO)是一种有前途的策略难治性心脏骤停。然而,左心室卸荷在ECPR中的作用仍不确定。方法:我们查询了美国全国住院患者样本(2016-2021),以确定接受ECPR的院外(OHCA)和院内心脏骤停(IHCA)的成年患者。根据单独使用VA-ECMO或VA-ECMO联合主动脉内球囊泵(IABP)或VA-ECMO联合Impella (ECPELLA)进行心室卸载,对患者进行分层。采用多变量logistic回归比较两组间的住院结果。结果:6915例接受ECPR的患者中,5147例(74.4%)单独使用VA-ECMO, 811例(11.7%)使用VA-ECMO- iabp, 957例(13.9%)使用ECPELLA。在IHCA患者中,与单独VA-ECMO相比,ECPELLA的住院死亡率降低50%(校正优势比[aOR] 0.50, 95% CI 0.31-0.81, p)。结论:与单独VA-ECMO相比,左室机械卸载与IHCA患者的生存改善相关,但与OHCA患者的生存改善无关。在VA-ECMO中添加IABP与死亡率获益无关。
Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with and without left ventricular unloading in patients with cardiac arrest: A nationwide analysis from the United States.
Background: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) using veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is a promising strategy for refractory cardiac arrest. However, the role of left ventricular (LV) unloading during ECPR remains uncertain.
Methods: We queried the United States National Inpatient Sample (2016-2021) to identify adult patients with out-of-hospital (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) who received ECPR. Patients were stratified based on the use of either VA-ECMO only or VA-ECMO with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or VA-ECMO with Impella (ECPELLA) for ventricular unloading. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare in-hospital outcomes between the groups.
Results: Among 6915 patients receiving ECPR, VA-ECMO alone was used in 5147 (74.4 %), VA-ECMO-IABP in 811 (11.7 %), and ECPELLA in 957 (13.9 %). In IHCA patients, ECPELLA was associated with 50 % lower odds of in-hospital mortality compared to VA-ECMO alone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.50, 95 % CI 0.31-0.81, p < 0.01). No significant difference was found in OHCA patients. VA-ECMO-IABP was not associated with a mortality benefit vs. VA-ECMO alone in either OHCA or IHCA.
Conclusion: LV mechanical unloading with ECPELLA was associated with improved survival in IHCA patients but not in OHCA patients compared to VA-ECMO alone. The addition of an IABP to VA-ECMO was not associated with a mortality benefit.
期刊介绍:
Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine (CRM) is an international and multidisciplinary journal that publishes original laboratory and clinical investigations related to revascularization therapies in cardiovascular medicine. Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine publishes articles related to preclinical work and molecular interventions, including angiogenesis, cell therapy, pharmacological interventions, restenosis management, and prevention, including experiments conducted in human subjects, in laboratory animals, and in vitro. Specific areas of interest include percutaneous angioplasty in coronary and peripheral arteries, intervention in structural heart disease, cardiovascular surgery, etc.