Abstract:Background Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) continues to portend poor clinical prognosis and remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Although venoarterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is frequently used in the treatment of AMI-CS, studies evaluating its benefit compared to percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVAD) or standard medical therapy in this patient population have yielded conflicting results. Purpose The goal of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the use of ECMO compared to either pVAD or medical therapy with or without intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) in patients presenting with AMI-CS. Methods A database search was performed for studies reporting on the association of ECMO compared to pVAD or medical therapy with or without IABP with clinical outcomes in patients with AMI-CS. The endpoints of interest were 30-day all-cause mortality and long term all-cause mortality. The databases searched included Pubmed, Web of Science, and Embase. The search was not restricted by time or publication status. Registry studies were excluded from this analysis. Results A total of 8 studies with 937 participants (447 treated with ECMO, 243 treated with pVAD, 247 treated with medical therapy with or without IABP) met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 63 years old, 80.5% were men, mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 26%, mean follow-up was 6.3 months (ranging 1-12 months). Treatment of AMI-CS patients with ECMO was not associated with lower risk of 30-day all-cause mortality compared to pVAD or standard medical therapy with or without IABP placement (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.87-1.90; p=0.21; OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25-1.35; p=0.13). Heterogenetic was low to moderate for each subgroup. Test for subgroup differences did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in the results for pVAD and for standard medical therapy with or without IABP (p=0.10, I2=64.1%). Compared to pVAD, ECMO was not associated lower risk of long-term mortality (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.85-1.90; p=0.24). The heterogeneity for this analysis was low (I2=0%). Conclusion In patients presenting with AMI-CS, use of VA-ECMO is not associated with lower risk of mortality compared to pVAD or standard medical therapy with or without IABP placement. The risks and benefits of ECMO should be carefully considered compared to other forms of temporary mechanical circulatory support.Figure 1

Utility of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

Comparison Of Outcomes In Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated With Cardiogenic Shock Treated With Ecpella Versus Va-ecmo With Iabp

Concurrent intra-aortic balloon pump and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute coronary syndrome-related cardiogenic shock: A meta-analysis of multivariate studies

Meta-Analysis Comparing Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation With or Without Impella in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

Effect of an intra-aortic balloon pump with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation on mortality of patients with cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Efficacy of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with and without intra-aortic balloon pump in adult cardiogenic shock

Left ventricular unloading via percutaneous assist device during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in acute myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest

Preserving flow, saving lives: Successful treatment of aortic valve failure in acute myocardial infarction without flow down-regulation using ECMO - a case report and mini review

Benefit of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation combined with Impella (ECpella) therapy in acute coronary syndrome with cardiogenic shock

Short-Term Efficacy and Safety of Different Mechanical Hemodynamic Support Devices for Cardiogenic Shock or High-Risk Pci: a Network Meta-Analysis of Thirty-Seven Trials

VA-ECMO-related complications seem not causally related to mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

Do DanGer-SHOCK-like patients benefit from VA-ECMO treatment in infarct-related cardiogenic shock? results of an individual patient data meta-analysis

Complications and Outcomes in 39,864 Patients Receiving Standard Care Plus Mechanical Circulatory Support or Standard Care Alone for Infarct-Associated Cardiogenic Shock

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support As Treatment For Cardiogenic Shock: Treatment Strategies And Analysis Of Risk Factors

Abstract 12772: In Hospital Outcomes With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Alone vs Combined With Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device

Outcome of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Combined with Intraaortic Balloon Pump Hemodynamic Support During the Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Process for Patients with Cardiac Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Scrutinizing the Role of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Has Clinical Practice Outpaced the Evidence?

Direct comparison of mechanical circulatory support devices in porcine model of acute myocardial infarction complicated by ventricular septal defect and cardiogenic shock

Clinical significance of residual ischemia in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock undergoing VA-ECMO

Outcome Of Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation For Patients Undergoing Valvular Surgery