부산대학교 도서관

Background: Percutaneous mechanical circulatory devices are increasingly used in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). As evidence from randomized studies comparing these devices are lacking, optimal choice of the device type is unclear. Here we aim to compare outcomes of patients with CS supported with either Impella or vaECMO.Methods: Retrospective single-center analysis of patients with CS, from September 2014 to September 2019. Patients were assisted with either Impella 2.5/CP or vaECMO. Patients supported ultimately with both devices were analyzed according to the first device implanted. Primary outcomes were hospital and 6-month survival. Secondary endpoints were complications. Survival outcomes were compared using propensity-matched analysis to account for differences in baseline characteristics between both groups.Results: A total of 423 patients were included (Impella, n = 300 and vaECMO, n = 123). Survival rates were similar in both groups (hospital survival: Impella 47.7% and vaECMO 37.3%, p = 0.07; 6-month survival Impella 45.7% and vaECMO 35.8%, p = 0.07). There was no significant difference in survival rates, even after adjustment for baseline differences (hospital survival: Impella 50.6% and vaECMO 38.6%, p = 0.16; 6-month survival Impella 45.8% and vaECMO 38.6%, p = 0.43). Access-site bleeding and leg ischemia occurred more frequently in patients with vaECMO (17% versus 7.3%, p = 0.004; 17% versus 7.7%, p = 0.008).Conclusions: In this retrospective analysis of patients with CS, treatment with Impella 2.5/CP or vaECMO was associated with similar hospital and 6-month survival rates. Device-related access-site vascular complications occurred more frequently in the vaECMO group. A randomized trial is warranted to examine the effects of these devices on outcomes and to determine the optimal device choice in patients with CS.