Comparative outcomes in cardiogenic shock patients managed with Impella microaxial pump or extracorporeal life...

Cardiogenic shock is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Extracorporeal life support is used in most centers for short-term circulatory support. Alternatively, the Impella LP 5.0 and right direct (RD) microaxial ventricular assist device (Abiomed, Danvers, Mass) can provide isolated left and right ventricular support, respectively.

A retrospective, single center review was performed on all patients receiving circulatory assistance with either extracorporeal life support or Impella ventricular assist device. All Impella LP 5.0 were inserted via the femoral artery, while the RD system required sternotomy.

Twenty-nine patients received ventricular assist device support (Impella LP 5.0; n = 24; and Impella RD; n = 5), whereas 32 patients were placed on extracorporeal life support. The baseline characteristics of patients with cardiogenic shock, assisted by Impella or extracorporeal life support, were similar, but the etiology of cardiogenic shock was distributed differently in the 2 groups (P = .008). Forty-one percent of the Impella patients and 47% of the extracorporeal life support patients were weaned from support. The 30-day mortality (44% in the extracorporeal life support vs 38% in the Impella group) and proportion of patients discharged home (41% in the extracorporeal life support vs 59% in the Impella group) were not statistically different between the 2 groups. Arterial thrombosis was less frequent in the Impella group (3.4% vs 18.8%; P = .04). Blood product transfusions were less frequent in the Impella group (P < .001).

Both extracorporeal life support and axial flow pumps provided adequate support in patients with various etiologies of cardiogenic shock. Axial-flow pump may be an optimal type of support for patients with univentricular failure, whereas extracorporeal life support could be reserved for patients with biventricular failure or combined respiratory and circulatory failure.