Impella Versus Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock

Lemor A.; Hosseini Dehkordi S.H.; Basir M.B.; Villablanca P.A.; Jain T.; Koenig G.C.; Alaswad K.; Moses J.W.; Kapur N.K.; O'Neill W. · Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine (2020) · DOI: 10.1016/j.carrev.2020.05.042

Resumen

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.

Instituciones: Universidad de San Martín de Porres