Impella versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock
Recommended Citation
Lemor A, Hosseini Dehkordi SH, Basir MB, Villablanca PA, Jain T, Koenig GC, Alaswad K, Moses JW, Kapur NK, and O'Neill W. Impella versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2020.
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
5-30-2020
Publication Title
Cardiovasc Revasc Med
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous ventricular assist devices and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are increasingly used for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) in hospitals throughout the United States.
METHODS: Using the National Inpatient Sample from October 2015 to December 2017, we identified hospital admissions that underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and non-elective Impella or ECMO placement for AMI-CS using ICD-10 codes. Propensity-score matching was performed to compare both groups for primary and secondary outcomes.
RESULTS: We identified 6290 admissions for AMI-CS who underwent PCI and were treated with Impella (n = 5730, 91%) or ECMO (n = 560, 9%) from October 2015 to December 2017. After propensity-match analysis, the ECMO cohort had significantly higher in-hospital mortality (43.3% vs 26.7%, OR: 2.10, p = 0.021). The incidence of acute respiratory failure and vascular complications were significantly lower in the Impella cohort. We observed a shorter duration of hospital stay and lower hospital costs in the Impella cohort compared to those who received ECMO.
CONCLUSIONS: In AMI-CS, the use of Impella was associated with better clinical outcomes, fewer complications, shorter length of hospital stay and lower hospital cost compared to those undergoing ECMO placement.
PubMed ID
32605901
ePublication
ePub ahead of print
