Different Mechanical Circulatory Support Strategies for Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock: A Subanalysis of the ECLS-SHOCK Trial
Research output: Contribution to journal › Research article › Contributed › peer-review
Contributors
- Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiology (at Dresden Heart Centre)
- Heart Center Leipzig
- Institute for Heart Attack Research
- Klinikum Ludwigshafen
- University Hospital Heidelberg
- University Hospital Essen
- Asklepios Clinic Langen
- University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein - Campus Lübeck
- German Center for Cardiovascular Disease (DZHK) Partner site Hamburg/Kiel/Luebeck
- University Medical Center Göttingen
- Kerckhoff Clinic
- Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin
- University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf
- Elisabeth Hospital Essen
- Helios University Hospital Wuppertal
- Asklepios Klinik St. Georg
- University Hospital Duesseldorf
- Bad Berka Central Clinic
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are frequently used in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. In clinical practice, escalation of MCS device therapy is performed in a significant proportion of patients aiming to improve hemodynamic status.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes of different MCS device strategies in the ECLS-SHOCK (Extracorporeal Life Support in Cardiogenic Shock) trial.
METHODS: The present subanalysis from the ECLS-SHOCK trial analyzed outcomes of patients treated with upfront extracorporeal life support (ECLS) only, bailout MCS, and escalated MCS therapy. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality.
RESULTS: Upfront ECLS only, bailout MCS, and escalated MCS therapy were used in 165 (78.9%), 54 (26.0%), and 27 (12.9%) patients, respectively. Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 44.8% (95% CI: 37.1%-52.8%), 61.1% (95% CI: 46.9%-74.1%), and 55.6% (95% CI: 35.3%-74.5%) in the upfront ECLS, bailout MCS, and escalated MCS group (P = 0.09). Need for renal replacement therapy was higher in the bailout MCS (35.2%; 95% CI: 22.7%-49.4%) than in upfront ECLS (7.3%; 95% CI: 3.8%-12.4%) and escalated MCS (14.8%; 95% CI: 4.2%-33.8%) (P < 0.001). Moderate or severe bleeding complications were similar in the upfront ECLS (25.5%; 95% CI: 19.0%-32.8%), bailout MCS (22.2%; 95% CI: 12.0%-35.6%), and escalated MCS (22.2%; 95% CI: 8.6%-42.3%) group (P = 0.86).
CONCLUSIONS: Bailout and escalated MCS therapy is associated with numerically higher 30-day mortality compared with upfront ECLS use only. Bailout MCS use is also associated with higher need for renal replacement therapy. (Extracorporeal Life Support in Cardiogenic Shock [ECLS-SHOCK]; NCT03637205).
Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 691-701 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | JACC. Cardiovascular interventions |
| Volume | 18 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| Publication status | Published - 24 Mar 2025 |
| Peer-reviewed | Yes |
External IDs
| Scopus | 86000784701 |
|---|
Keywords
ASJC Scopus subject areas
Keywords
- cardiogenic shock, extracorporeal life support, mechanical circulatory support, myocardial infarction, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation