Comparison of mechanical circulatory support with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or Impella for patients with cardiogenic shock: a propensity-matched analysis
Background Percutaneous mechanical circulatory devices are increasingly used in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). As evidence from randomized studies comparing these devices are lacking, optimal choice of the device type is unclear. Here we aim to compare outcomes of patients with CS supported w...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical research in cardiology 2021-09, Vol.110 (9), p.1404-1411 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1411 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 9 |
| container_start_page | 1404 |
| container_title | Clinical research in cardiology |
| container_volume | 110 |
| creator | Karatolios, Konstantinos Chatzis, Georgios Markus, Birgit Luesebrink, Ulrich Ahrens, Holger Divchev, Dimitar Syntila, Styliani Jerrentrup, Andreas Schieffer, Bernhard |
| description | Background
Percutaneous mechanical circulatory devices are increasingly used in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). As evidence from randomized studies comparing these devices are lacking, optimal choice of the device type is unclear. Here we aim to compare outcomes of patients with CS supported with either Impella or vaECMO.
Methods
Retrospective single-center analysis of patients with CS, from September 2014 to September 2019. Patients were assisted with either Impella 2.5/CP or vaECMO. Patients supported ultimately with both devices were analyzed according to the first device implanted. Primary outcomes were hospital and 6-month survival. Secondary endpoints were complications. Survival outcomes were compared using propensity-matched analysis to account for differences in baseline characteristics between both groups.
Results
A total of 423 patients were included (Impella,
n
= 300 and vaECMO,
n
= 123). Survival rates were similar in both groups (hospital survival: Impella 47.7% and vaECMO 37.3%,
p
= 0.07; 6-month survival Impella 45.7% and vaECMO 35.8%,
p
= 0.07). There was no significant difference in survival rates, even after adjustment for baseline differences (hospital survival: Impella 50.6% and vaECMO 38.6%,
p
= 0.16; 6-month survival Impella 45.8% and vaECMO 38.6%,
p
= 0.43). Access-site bleeding and leg ischemia occurred more frequently in patients with vaECMO (17% versus 7.3%,
p
= 0.004; 17% versus 7.7%,
p
= 0.008).
Conclusions
In this retrospective analysis of patients with CS, treatment with Impella 2.5/CP or vaECMO was associated with similar hospital and 6-month survival rates. Device-related access-site vascular complications occurred more frequently in the vaECMO group. A randomized trial is warranted to examine the effects of these devices on outcomes and to determine the optimal device choice in patients with CS. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00392-020-01777-9 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8405518</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2566146336</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-40812795b50bfd02315d91f045c76a6cb018732e4c0bafb166815480283c29b93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9ks1u1TAQhSMEoqXwAiyQJTZsAuOf2AkLpOqKQqVKbGBtOY5z45LYwXZK81Y8Yn1JufwsWHns8_l4xjpF8RzDawwg3kQA2pASCJSAhRBl86A4xTXHJfCGPDzWNTspnsR4DVBhoOxxcUIprivBmtPix85Pswo2eod8jyajB-WsViPSNuhlVMmHFcVlnn1I6LtNA7oxzquQTLCZMrcpKO1Dlk3eTmZqg3IG-dt1b5xK9uAb0OU0m3FUqM_1nE-NS3Fz0yp01mfWahQHr7--RQrNwc_GRZvWclJJD6ZDyqlxjTY-LR71aozm2f16Vny5eP9597G8-vThcnd-VWomWCoZ1JiIpmoraPsOCMVV1-AeWKUFV1y3gGtBiWEaWtW3mPMaV6wGUlNNmrahZ8W7zXde2sl0Oncc1CjnYCcVVumVlX8rzg5y729kzaCqcJ0NXt0bBP9tMTHJyUZ9-AVn_BIlYRwEbxoBGX35D3rtl5AHzlTFOWacUp4pslE6-BiD6Y_NYJCHQMgtEDIHQv4MhDyM8eLPMY5XfiUgA3QDYpbc3oTfb__H9g5qCsaa</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2566146336</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of mechanical circulatory support with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or Impella for patients with cardiogenic shock: a propensity-matched analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>Karatolios, Konstantinos ; Chatzis, Georgios ; Markus, Birgit ; Luesebrink, Ulrich ; Ahrens, Holger ; Divchev, Dimitar ; Syntila, Styliani ; Jerrentrup, Andreas ; Schieffer, Bernhard</creator><creatorcontrib>Karatolios, Konstantinos ; Chatzis, Georgios ; Markus, Birgit ; Luesebrink, Ulrich ; Ahrens, Holger ; Divchev, Dimitar ; Syntila, Styliani ; Jerrentrup, Andreas ; Schieffer, Bernhard</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Percutaneous mechanical circulatory devices are increasingly used in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). As evidence from randomized studies comparing these devices are lacking, optimal choice of the device type is unclear. Here we aim to compare outcomes of patients with CS supported with either Impella or vaECMO.
Methods
Retrospective single-center analysis of patients with CS, from September 2014 to September 2019. Patients were assisted with either Impella 2.5/CP or vaECMO. Patients supported ultimately with both devices were analyzed according to the first device implanted. Primary outcomes were hospital and 6-month survival. Secondary endpoints were complications. Survival outcomes were compared using propensity-matched analysis to account for differences in baseline characteristics between both groups.
Results
A total of 423 patients were included (Impella,
n
= 300 and vaECMO,
n
= 123). Survival rates were similar in both groups (hospital survival: Impella 47.7% and vaECMO 37.3%,
p
= 0.07; 6-month survival Impella 45.7% and vaECMO 35.8%,
p
= 0.07). There was no significant difference in survival rates, even after adjustment for baseline differences (hospital survival: Impella 50.6% and vaECMO 38.6%,
p
= 0.16; 6-month survival Impella 45.8% and vaECMO 38.6%,
p
= 0.43). Access-site bleeding and leg ischemia occurred more frequently in patients with vaECMO (17% versus 7.3%,
p
= 0.004; 17% versus 7.7%,
p
= 0.008).
Conclusions
In this retrospective analysis of patients with CS, treatment with Impella 2.5/CP or vaECMO was associated with similar hospital and 6-month survival rates. Device-related access-site vascular complications occurred more frequently in the vaECMO group. A randomized trial is warranted to examine the effects of these devices on outcomes and to determine the optimal device choice in patients with CS.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1861-0684</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1861-0692</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00392-020-01777-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33185749</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Cardiology ; Complications ; Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation - adverse effects ; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation - methods ; Female ; Heart-Assist Devices - adverse effects ; Hemorrhage - epidemiology ; Hemorrhage - etiology ; Humans ; Ischemia ; Ischemia - epidemiology ; Ischemia - etiology ; Life support systems ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Original Paper ; Oxygenation ; Patients ; Propensity Score ; Retrospective Studies ; Shock (Circulatory) ; Shock, Cardiogenic - mortality ; Shock, Cardiogenic - therapy ; Survival ; Survival Rate ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Clinical research in cardiology, 2021-09, Vol.110 (9), p.1404-1411</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2020</rights><rights>2020. The Author(s).</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2020. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-40812795b50bfd02315d91f045c76a6cb018732e4c0bafb166815480283c29b93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-40812795b50bfd02315d91f045c76a6cb018732e4c0bafb166815480283c29b93</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7996-7019</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00392-020-01777-9$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00392-020-01777-9$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33185749$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Karatolios, Konstantinos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chatzis, Georgios</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Markus, Birgit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luesebrink, Ulrich</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ahrens, Holger</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Divchev, Dimitar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Syntila, Styliani</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jerrentrup, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schieffer, Bernhard</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of mechanical circulatory support with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or Impella for patients with cardiogenic shock: a propensity-matched analysis</title><title>Clinical research in cardiology</title><addtitle>Clin Res Cardiol</addtitle><addtitle>Clin Res Cardiol</addtitle><description>Background
Percutaneous mechanical circulatory devices are increasingly used in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). As evidence from randomized studies comparing these devices are lacking, optimal choice of the device type is unclear. Here we aim to compare outcomes of patients with CS supported with either Impella or vaECMO.
Methods
Retrospective single-center analysis of patients with CS, from September 2014 to September 2019. Patients were assisted with either Impella 2.5/CP or vaECMO. Patients supported ultimately with both devices were analyzed according to the first device implanted. Primary outcomes were hospital and 6-month survival. Secondary endpoints were complications. Survival outcomes were compared using propensity-matched analysis to account for differences in baseline characteristics between both groups.
Results
A total of 423 patients were included (Impella,
n
= 300 and vaECMO,
n
= 123). Survival rates were similar in both groups (hospital survival: Impella 47.7% and vaECMO 37.3%,
p
= 0.07; 6-month survival Impella 45.7% and vaECMO 35.8%,
p
= 0.07). There was no significant difference in survival rates, even after adjustment for baseline differences (hospital survival: Impella 50.6% and vaECMO 38.6%,
p
= 0.16; 6-month survival Impella 45.8% and vaECMO 38.6%,
p
= 0.43). Access-site bleeding and leg ischemia occurred more frequently in patients with vaECMO (17% versus 7.3%,
p
= 0.004; 17% versus 7.7%,
p
= 0.008).
Conclusions
In this retrospective analysis of patients with CS, treatment with Impella 2.5/CP or vaECMO was associated with similar hospital and 6-month survival rates. Device-related access-site vascular complications occurred more frequently in the vaECMO group. A randomized trial is warranted to examine the effects of these devices on outcomes and to determine the optimal device choice in patients with CS.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Cardiology</subject><subject>Complications</subject><subject>Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation</subject><subject>Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation - adverse effects</subject><subject>Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Heart-Assist Devices - adverse effects</subject><subject>Hemorrhage - epidemiology</subject><subject>Hemorrhage - etiology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Ischemia</subject><subject>Ischemia - epidemiology</subject><subject>Ischemia - etiology</subject><subject>Life support systems</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Oxygenation</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Propensity Score</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Shock (Circulatory)</subject><subject>Shock, Cardiogenic - mortality</subject><subject>Shock, Cardiogenic - therapy</subject><subject>Survival</subject><subject>Survival Rate</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1861-0684</issn><issn>1861-0692</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNp9ks1u1TAQhSMEoqXwAiyQJTZsAuOf2AkLpOqKQqVKbGBtOY5z45LYwXZK81Y8Yn1JufwsWHns8_l4xjpF8RzDawwg3kQA2pASCJSAhRBl86A4xTXHJfCGPDzWNTspnsR4DVBhoOxxcUIprivBmtPix85Pswo2eod8jyajB-WsViPSNuhlVMmHFcVlnn1I6LtNA7oxzquQTLCZMrcpKO1Dlk3eTmZqg3IG-dt1b5xK9uAb0OU0m3FUqM_1nE-NS3Fz0yp01mfWahQHr7--RQrNwc_GRZvWclJJD6ZDyqlxjTY-LR71aozm2f16Vny5eP9597G8-vThcnd-VWomWCoZ1JiIpmoraPsOCMVV1-AeWKUFV1y3gGtBiWEaWtW3mPMaV6wGUlNNmrahZ8W7zXde2sl0Oncc1CjnYCcVVumVlX8rzg5y729kzaCqcJ0NXt0bBP9tMTHJyUZ9-AVn_BIlYRwEbxoBGX35D3rtl5AHzlTFOWacUp4pslE6-BiD6Y_NYJCHQMgtEDIHQv4MhDyM8eLPMY5XfiUgA3QDYpbc3oTfb__H9g5qCsaa</recordid><startdate>20210901</startdate><enddate>20210901</enddate><creator>Karatolios, Konstantinos</creator><creator>Chatzis, Georgios</creator><creator>Markus, Birgit</creator><creator>Luesebrink, Ulrich</creator><creator>Ahrens, Holger</creator><creator>Divchev, Dimitar</creator><creator>Syntila, Styliani</creator><creator>Jerrentrup, Andreas</creator><creator>Schieffer, Bernhard</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7996-7019</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210901</creationdate><title>Comparison of mechanical circulatory support with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or Impella for patients with cardiogenic shock: a propensity-matched analysis</title><author>Karatolios, Konstantinos ; Chatzis, Georgios ; Markus, Birgit ; Luesebrink, Ulrich ; Ahrens, Holger ; Divchev, Dimitar ; Syntila, Styliani ; Jerrentrup, Andreas ; Schieffer, Bernhard</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-40812795b50bfd02315d91f045c76a6cb018732e4c0bafb166815480283c29b93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Cardiology</topic><topic>Complications</topic><topic>Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation</topic><topic>Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation - adverse effects</topic><topic>Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Heart-Assist Devices - adverse effects</topic><topic>Hemorrhage - epidemiology</topic><topic>Hemorrhage - etiology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Ischemia</topic><topic>Ischemia - epidemiology</topic><topic>Ischemia - etiology</topic><topic>Life support systems</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Oxygenation</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Propensity Score</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Shock (Circulatory)</topic><topic>Shock, Cardiogenic - mortality</topic><topic>Shock, Cardiogenic - therapy</topic><topic>Survival</topic><topic>Survival Rate</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Karatolios, Konstantinos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chatzis, Georgios</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Markus, Birgit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luesebrink, Ulrich</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ahrens, Holger</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Divchev, Dimitar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Syntila, Styliani</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jerrentrup, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schieffer, Bernhard</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Clinical research in cardiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Karatolios, Konstantinos</au><au>Chatzis, Georgios</au><au>Markus, Birgit</au><au>Luesebrink, Ulrich</au><au>Ahrens, Holger</au><au>Divchev, Dimitar</au><au>Syntila, Styliani</au><au>Jerrentrup, Andreas</au><au>Schieffer, Bernhard</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of mechanical circulatory support with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or Impella for patients with cardiogenic shock: a propensity-matched analysis</atitle><jtitle>Clinical research in cardiology</jtitle><stitle>Clin Res Cardiol</stitle><addtitle>Clin Res Cardiol</addtitle><date>2021-09-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>110</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1404</spage><epage>1411</epage><pages>1404-1411</pages><issn>1861-0684</issn><eissn>1861-0692</eissn><abstract>Background
Percutaneous mechanical circulatory devices are increasingly used in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). As evidence from randomized studies comparing these devices are lacking, optimal choice of the device type is unclear. Here we aim to compare outcomes of patients with CS supported with either Impella or vaECMO.
Methods
Retrospective single-center analysis of patients with CS, from September 2014 to September 2019. Patients were assisted with either Impella 2.5/CP or vaECMO. Patients supported ultimately with both devices were analyzed according to the first device implanted. Primary outcomes were hospital and 6-month survival. Secondary endpoints were complications. Survival outcomes were compared using propensity-matched analysis to account for differences in baseline characteristics between both groups.
Results
A total of 423 patients were included (Impella,
n
= 300 and vaECMO,
n
= 123). Survival rates were similar in both groups (hospital survival: Impella 47.7% and vaECMO 37.3%,
p
= 0.07; 6-month survival Impella 45.7% and vaECMO 35.8%,
p
= 0.07). There was no significant difference in survival rates, even after adjustment for baseline differences (hospital survival: Impella 50.6% and vaECMO 38.6%,
p
= 0.16; 6-month survival Impella 45.8% and vaECMO 38.6%,
p
= 0.43). Access-site bleeding and leg ischemia occurred more frequently in patients with vaECMO (17% versus 7.3%,
p
= 0.004; 17% versus 7.7%,
p
= 0.008).
Conclusions
In this retrospective analysis of patients with CS, treatment with Impella 2.5/CP or vaECMO was associated with similar hospital and 6-month survival rates. Device-related access-site vascular complications occurred more frequently in the vaECMO group. A randomized trial is warranted to examine the effects of these devices on outcomes and to determine the optimal device choice in patients with CS.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>33185749</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00392-020-01777-9</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7996-7019</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1861-0684 |
| ispartof | Clinical research in cardiology, 2021-09, Vol.110 (9), p.1404-1411 |
| issn | 1861-0684 1861-0692 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8405518 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerNature Journals |
| subjects | Aged Aged, 80 and over Cardiology Complications Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation - adverse effects Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation - methods Female Heart-Assist Devices - adverse effects Hemorrhage - epidemiology Hemorrhage - etiology Humans Ischemia Ischemia - epidemiology Ischemia - etiology Life support systems Male Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Original Paper Oxygenation Patients Propensity Score Retrospective Studies Shock (Circulatory) Shock, Cardiogenic - mortality Shock, Cardiogenic - therapy Survival Survival Rate Treatment Outcome |
| title | Comparison of mechanical circulatory support with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or Impella for patients with cardiogenic shock: a propensity-matched analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T17%3A11%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20mechanical%20circulatory%20support%20with%20venoarterial%20extracorporeal%20membrane%20oxygenation%20or%20Impella%20for%20patients%20with%20cardiogenic%20shock:%20a%20propensity-matched%20analysis&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20research%20in%20cardiology&rft.au=Karatolios,%20Konstantinos&rft.date=2021-09-01&rft.volume=110&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1404&rft.epage=1411&rft.pages=1404-1411&rft.issn=1861-0684&rft.eissn=1861-0692&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00392-020-01777-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2566146336%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2566146336&rft_id=info:pmid/33185749&rfr_iscdi=true |