Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 5, 2026

Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in a Mouse
Published on: October 24, 2018
Unveiling Baseline Clinical Divergence in VA ECMO vs. ECPELLA: Tailoring Treatment for Distinct Patient Profiles. A
Andrea Montisci1, Serena Ambrosi1, Massimo Baudo2
1Division of Cardiothoracic Intensive Care, Cardiothoracic Department, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Objectives:
The benefit of combining multiple mechanical circulatory support (MCS) systems in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) is debated. This review examines patient characteristics across studies to identify differences and assesses if patients with a higher-risk clinical profile receive Impella unloading.
Design:
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to examine if there were significant differences in baseline clinical parameters among patients receiving MCS in addition to venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO).
Setting:
A total of nine retrospective, three prospective, and two randomized controlled trials were included in this analysis.
Participants:
The sample sizes ranged from 34 to 1,678 patients.
Interventions:
The outcomes were assessments of differences in baseline clinical characteristics and comorbidities among patients that received VA ECMO alone or VA ECMO with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) versus ECPella.
Measurements And Main Results:
ECPella patients showed a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease (65.0% v 34.6%, p < 0.0001), cardiac arrest before MCS implantation (63.1% v 52.7%, p < 0.0001), and ischemic CS (53.1% v 42.6%, p < 0.0001) compared with patients with VA ECMO alone. The comparison between ECPella and VA ECMO + IABP patients showed a higher prevalence of acute myocardial infarction-CS (53.1% v 39.0%, p < 0.0001), preimplantation cardiac arrest (63% v 49.3%, p < 0.0001), and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (25.8% v 20.0%, p = 0.0015). The inclusion of the two randomized controlled trials in the VA ECMO group increased the prevalence of comorbidities compared with the ECPella group.
Conclusions:
Patients who received a combination of MCS and VA ECMO have a greater prevalence of comorbidities.
More Related Videos
07:41Insertion, Maintenance, and Removal of the Percutaneous Dual Lumen Cannula Right Ventricular Assist Device
Published on: July 20, 2022
03:40Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Peripheral Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Without Left Ventricular Venting
Published on: January 17, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Treatment for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Oxygen Therapy for Respiratory Failure
Oxygen therapy is vital in increasing and maintaining blood oxygen levels in PAH patients. As a result, it aids in reducing fatigue,...
Factors Affecting Pulmonary Ventilation
Alveolar Surface Tension
The alveolar fluid lines the luminal surface of the alveoli and exerts a force called surface tension. This force is caused by the polar water molecules in the liquid being more strongly attracted to each...
Mechanical Ventilation I: Indication and Settings
Mechanical Ventilation III: Noninvasive Ventilation
Noninvasive Positive-Pressure Ventilation...
Pulmonary Embolism II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care