+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Cardiogenic Shock due to Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.



          Cardiogenic shock is associated with high mortality, despite new strategies for reperfusion therapy. Short-term circulatory support devices may provide adequate support for appropriate myocardial and organ perfusion.


          This review is aimed at evaluating the impact on survival when using venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO) in patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI).


          We performed a systematic review that included studies using V-A ECMO in patients with cardiogenic shock. Time on ECMO, side effects, and the number of deceased patients, transplanted or upgraded to durable assist devices were analysed. Literature search was done using PubMed/MEDLINE (inception (1969) to January 10, 2019), ProQuest (inception (January 14, 1988) to January 10, 2019), and (inception (September 12, 2005) to January 10, 2019), by 2 authors. This protocol is registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42019123982).


          We included 9 studies with a total of 1,998 adult patients receiving V-A ECMO for AMI-induced cardiogenic shock. Survival rate varied from 30.0% to 79.2% at discharge and from 23.2% to 36.1% at 12 months. Time on ECMO varied between 1.96 and 6.0 days. Reported serious adverse events were gastrointestinal bleeding (3.6%) and peripheral complications (8.5%).


          The use of V-A ECMO among patients with AMI-induced cardiogenic shock may provide survival benefits. However, V-A ECMO treatment effects are inconclusive because of limitations in cohort design and reporting.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cardiopulmonary resuscitation with assisted extracorporeal life-support versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults with in-hospital cardiac arrest: an observational study and propensity analysis.

          Extracorporeal life-support as an adjunct to cardiac resuscitation has shown encouraging outcomes in patients with cardiac arrest. However, there is little evidence about the benefit of the procedure compared with conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), especially when continued for more than 10 min. We aimed to assess whether extracorporeal CPR was better than conventional CPR for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest of cardiac origin. We did a 3-year prospective observational study on the use of extracorporeal life-support for patients aged 18-75 years with witnessed in-hospital cardiac arrest of cardiac origin undergoing CPR of more than 10 min compared with patients receiving conventional CPR. A matching process based on propensity-score was done to equalise potential prognostic factors in both groups, and to formulate a balanced 1:1 matched cohort study. The primary endpoint was survival to hospital discharge, and analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with, number NCT00173615. Of the 975 patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest events who underwent CPR for longer than 10 min, 113 were enrolled in the conventional CPR group and 59 were enrolled in the extracorporeal CPR group. Unmatched patients who underwent extracorporeal CPR had a higher survival rate to discharge (log-rank p<0.0001) and a better 1-year survival than those who received conventional CPR (log rank p=0.007). Between the propensity-score matched groups, there was still a significant difference in survival to discharge (hazard ratio [HR] 0.51, 95% CI 0.35-0.74, p<0.0001), 30-day survival (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.28-0.77, p=0.003), and 1-year survival (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.83, p=0.006) favouring extracorporeal CPR over conventional CPR. Extracorporeal CPR had a short-term and long-term survival benefit over conventional CPR in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest of cardiac origin.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Predicting survival after ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock: the survival after veno-arterial-ECMO (SAVE)-score.

            Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may provide mechanical pulmonary and circulatory support for patients with cardiogenic shock refractory to conventional medical therapy. Prediction of survival in these patients may assist in management of these patients and comparison of results from different centers.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

              Cardiogenic shock is a high-acuity, potentially complex, and hemodynamically diverse state of end-organ hypoperfusion that is frequently associated with multisystem organ failure. Despite improving survival in recent years, patient morbidity and mortality remain high, and there are few evidence-based therapeutic interventions known to clearly improve patient outcomes. This scientific statement on cardiogenic shock summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, causes, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock; reviews contemporary best medical, surgical, mechanical circulatory support, and palliative care practices; advocates for the development of regionalized systems of care; and outlines future research priorities.

                Author and article information

                Biomed Res Int
                Biomed Res Int
                BioMed Research International
                19 April 2020
                : 2020
                1Cardiovascular Diseases Institute “Prof. Dr. George I.M. Georgescu”, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Iasi, Romania
                2“C. I. Parhon” University Hospital, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Iasi, Romania
                3Research Methodology and Evidence Based Medicine Center, Iasi, Romania
                4Rehabilitation Clinical Hospital, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Iasi, Romania
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Guiming Liu

                Copyright © 2020 Marius Andrei Zavalichi et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                Research Article


                Comment on this article