Scrutinizing mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock: Have we jumped the gun?

Enzo Lüsebrink,Hugo Lanz,Holger Thiele

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-04853-y

IF: 15.1

2024-03-17

Critical Care

Abstract:Despite increasing therapeutic options and disposable resources, cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a formidable condition with high mortality. Today, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and microaxial flow devices (Impella, Abiomed, Danvers, USA) are established forms of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in CS, with increasing application over the years. Despite this trend, incorporation into current ESC (Class IIa, evidence C) and AHA/ACC (Class IIa, evidence B-NR) guidelines is based nearly exclusively on observational results. Despite these recommendations and increasing application, current evidence from randomized controlled trials has not provided clear mortality benefit. Thus, reflection on current evidence is hereby justified.

critical care medicine

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

This paper attempts to explore the effectiveness and safety issues of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in the treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS), especially the effects of using veno - arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V - A ECMO) and Impella devices in cardiogenic shock related to acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Although the application of these technologies is increasingly widespread and has been incorporated into the current ESC and AHA/ACC guidelines, evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has not clearly shown that these technologies can significantly reduce mortality. Therefore, the authors of the paper raise the following issues that need further examination:

1. **Do specific subgroups benefit from V - A ECMO?** Current guidelines do not provide detailed guidance on patient selection to determine which patients are most suitable for MCS. Subgroup analysis of factors such as age, gender, lactate level, cardiac arrest, type or location of myocardial infarction, and post - PCI results did not show a survival benefit.

2. **Does the initiation timing of V - A ECMO affect the prognosis?** Observational studies suggest that initiating V - A ECMO before PCI may be beneficial, but in the ECLS - SHOCK trial, approximately 50% of patients had V - A ECMO before or during revascularization, and no improvement in mortality was shown.

3. **Is the safety of V - A ECMO sufficient to justify its application?** Studies have shown that compared with the control group, V - A ECMO patients have a higher risk of moderate - to - severe bleeding (OR 2.44; 95%CI 1.55 - 3.84) and peripheral ischemia complications (OR 3.53; 95%CI 1.70 - 7.34). This indicates that even if treated according to the guidelines, worse results may be caused by bleeding.

For the Impella device, although its usage has increased with the decline in the recommended level of IABP, reliable evidence of its benefits is still limited, mainly from a few small RCTs. Meta - analysis shows that there is no significant difference in short - term mortality between Impella and IABP (RR 1.01; 95%CI 0.70 - 1.44, p = 0.98, I2 = 0%), and Impella users have a higher risk of severe bleeding and limb ischemia.

In conclusion, the core issue of this paper is to question whether the current widespread application of mechanical circulatory support technologies in the treatment of cardiogenic shock is reasonable, especially in the absence of sufficient RCT evidence to support their mortality - reducing effects, whether the value of their clinical application should be re - evaluated.