Recommended Citation
Hendrickson MJ, Jain V, Bhatia K, Chew C, Arora S, Rossi JS, Villablanca P, Kapur NK, Joshi AA, Fox A, Mahmood K, Birati EY, Ricciardi MJ, and Qamar A. Trends in Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Life Support With and Without an Impella or Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for Cardiogenic Shock. J Am Heart Assoc 2022; e7896.
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
12-6-2022
Publication Title
J Am Heart Assoc
Abstract
Background: Mechanical circulatory support devices, such as the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and Impella, are often used in patients on veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (VA-ECLS) with cardiogenic shock despite limited supporting clinical trial data.
Methods and Results: Hospitalizations for cardiogenic shock from 2016 to 2018 were identified from the National Inpatient Sample. Trends in the use of VA-ECLS with and without an IABP or Impella were assessed semiannually. Multivariable logistic regression and general linear regression evaluated the association of Impella and IABP use with in-hospital outcomes. Overall, 12 035 hospitalizations with cardiogenic shock and VA-ECLS were identified, of which 3115 (26%) also received an IABP and 1880 (16%) an Impella. Use of an Impella with VA-ECLS substantially increased from 10% to 18% over this period (P<0.001), whereas an IABP modestly increased from 25% to 26% (P<0.001). In-hospital mortality decreased 54% to 48% for VA-ECLS only, 61% to 58% for VA-ECLS with an Impella, and 54% to 49% for VA-ECLS with an IABP (P<0.001 each). Most (57%) IABPs or Impellas were placed on the same day as VA-ECLS. After adjustment, there were no differences in in-hospital mortality or length of stay with the addition of an IABP or Impella compared with VA-ECLS alone.
Conclusions: From 2016 to 2018 in the United States, use of an Impella and IABP with VA-ECLS significantly increased. More than half of Impellas and IABPs were placed on the same day as VA-ECLS, and the use of a second mechanical circulatory support device did not impact in-hospital mortality. Further studies are needed to decipher the optimal timing and patient selection for this growing practice.
PubMed ID
36420809
ePublication
ePub ahead of print
Volume
11
Issue
23
First Page
025216
Last Page
025216
