Trends and outcomes of different mechanical circulatory support modalities for refractory cardiogenic shock in Takotsubo cardiomyopathy

Background: The use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in cardiogenic shock is growing. We aim to study trends and compare different MCS modalities in this population. Methods: The National Readmission Database (2016-2020) was queried to identify TTC-CS requiring MCS. Cohorts were strat...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Shafaqat Ali, Manoj Kumar, Yehya Khlidj, Faryal Farooq, Thannon Alsaeed, Muhammad Sultan, Pramod Kumar Ponna, Laxman Byreddi, Pratik Agrawal, Vijaywant Brar, Tarek Helmy, Taher Tayeb
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2025-06-01
Series:American Heart Journal Plus
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666602225000485
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849324121157009408
author Shafaqat Ali
Manoj Kumar
Yehya Khlidj
Faryal Farooq
Thannon Alsaeed
Muhammad Sultan
Pramod Kumar Ponna
Laxman Byreddi
Pratik Agrawal
Vijaywant Brar
Tarek Helmy
Taher Tayeb
author_facet Shafaqat Ali
Manoj Kumar
Yehya Khlidj
Faryal Farooq
Thannon Alsaeed
Muhammad Sultan
Pramod Kumar Ponna
Laxman Byreddi
Pratik Agrawal
Vijaywant Brar
Tarek Helmy
Taher Tayeb
author_sort Shafaqat Ali
collection DOAJ
description Background: The use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in cardiogenic shock is growing. We aim to study trends and compare different MCS modalities in this population. Methods: The National Readmission Database (2016-2020) was queried to identify TTC-CS requiring MCS. Cohorts were stratified as ECMO (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) compared to other short-term percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (Impella). The propensity score matching (PSM) was used to remove confounders. Pearson’s x2 test was applied to PSM-matched cohorts to compare outcomes. Additionally, we used multivariate regression and reported predictive margins for adjusted trend analysis. Results: Among 2,025 TTC-CS hospitalizations requiring MCS, 1,790 required Impella vs. 235 on ECMO. ECMO was more common in metropolitan teaching hospitals (72.2 % vs 56.1 %, p < 0.05). On PSM cohorts (N = 131), ECMO had higher in-hospital mortality (38.9 % vs. 20.6 %, p < 0.001), major bleeding (15.3 % vs. 2.3 %, p < 0.001), acute blood loss anemia (48.9 % vs. 19.1 %, p < 0.001) among others. Our subgroup analysis comparing ECMO when Left ventricular (LV) unloading was provided by either IABP or Impella, and Impella alone showed no difference in the short-term mortality (42.2 % vs. 33.3 %, p: 0.384). However, the rates of major bleeding (17.8 % vs. 0.0 %, p: 0.003) and acute blood loss anemia (55.6 % vs. 22.2 %, p: 0.001) were higher for ECMO cohort. Conclusion: In the absence of LV unloading, the ECMO utilization in TTC-CS had higher mortality and adverse events than Impella. The mortality difference was nonsignificant when concomitant LV unloading was provided with Impella or IABP in these patients.
format Article
id doaj-art-370612ef754e4a09a4f9fc87e1f8e4d3
institution Kabale University
issn 2666-6022
language English
publishDate 2025-06-01
publisher Elsevier
record_format Article
series American Heart Journal Plus
spelling doaj-art-370612ef754e4a09a4f9fc87e1f8e4d32025-08-20T03:48:47ZengElsevierAmerican Heart Journal Plus2666-60222025-06-015410054510.1016/j.ahjo.2025.100545Trends and outcomes of different mechanical circulatory support modalities for refractory cardiogenic shock in Takotsubo cardiomyopathyShafaqat Ali0Manoj Kumar1Yehya Khlidj2Faryal Farooq3Thannon Alsaeed4Muhammad Sultan5Pramod Kumar Ponna6Laxman Byreddi7Pratik Agrawal8Vijaywant Brar9Tarek Helmy10Taher Tayeb11Department of Internal Medicine, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, LA, USA; Corresponding author.Department of Medicine, John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County, Chicago, IL, USADepartment of Medicine, University of Algiers 1, Algiers, AlgeriaDepartment of Medicine, Allama Iqbal Medical College Lahore, PakistanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, LA, USADepartment of Internal Medicine, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, LA, USADepartment of Internal Medicine, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, LA, USADepartment of Internal Medicine, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, LA, USADepartment of Cardiology, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, LA, USADepartment of Cardiology, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, LA, USADepartment of Cardiology, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, LA, USADepartment of Cardiology, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, LA, USABackground: The use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in cardiogenic shock is growing. We aim to study trends and compare different MCS modalities in this population. Methods: The National Readmission Database (2016-2020) was queried to identify TTC-CS requiring MCS. Cohorts were stratified as ECMO (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) compared to other short-term percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (Impella). The propensity score matching (PSM) was used to remove confounders. Pearson’s x2 test was applied to PSM-matched cohorts to compare outcomes. Additionally, we used multivariate regression and reported predictive margins for adjusted trend analysis. Results: Among 2,025 TTC-CS hospitalizations requiring MCS, 1,790 required Impella vs. 235 on ECMO. ECMO was more common in metropolitan teaching hospitals (72.2 % vs 56.1 %, p < 0.05). On PSM cohorts (N = 131), ECMO had higher in-hospital mortality (38.9 % vs. 20.6 %, p < 0.001), major bleeding (15.3 % vs. 2.3 %, p < 0.001), acute blood loss anemia (48.9 % vs. 19.1 %, p < 0.001) among others. Our subgroup analysis comparing ECMO when Left ventricular (LV) unloading was provided by either IABP or Impella, and Impella alone showed no difference in the short-term mortality (42.2 % vs. 33.3 %, p: 0.384). However, the rates of major bleeding (17.8 % vs. 0.0 %, p: 0.003) and acute blood loss anemia (55.6 % vs. 22.2 %, p: 0.001) were higher for ECMO cohort. Conclusion: In the absence of LV unloading, the ECMO utilization in TTC-CS had higher mortality and adverse events than Impella. The mortality difference was nonsignificant when concomitant LV unloading was provided with Impella or IABP in these patients.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666602225000485Takotsubo cardiomyopathyECMOImpellaMechanical circulatory supportCardiogenic shock
spellingShingle Shafaqat Ali
Manoj Kumar
Yehya Khlidj
Faryal Farooq
Thannon Alsaeed
Muhammad Sultan
Pramod Kumar Ponna
Laxman Byreddi
Pratik Agrawal
Vijaywant Brar
Tarek Helmy
Taher Tayeb
Trends and outcomes of different mechanical circulatory support modalities for refractory cardiogenic shock in Takotsubo cardiomyopathy
American Heart Journal Plus
Takotsubo cardiomyopathy
ECMO
Impella
Mechanical circulatory support
Cardiogenic shock
title Trends and outcomes of different mechanical circulatory support modalities for refractory cardiogenic shock in Takotsubo cardiomyopathy
title_full Trends and outcomes of different mechanical circulatory support modalities for refractory cardiogenic shock in Takotsubo cardiomyopathy
title_fullStr Trends and outcomes of different mechanical circulatory support modalities for refractory cardiogenic shock in Takotsubo cardiomyopathy
title_full_unstemmed Trends and outcomes of different mechanical circulatory support modalities for refractory cardiogenic shock in Takotsubo cardiomyopathy
title_short Trends and outcomes of different mechanical circulatory support modalities for refractory cardiogenic shock in Takotsubo cardiomyopathy
title_sort trends and outcomes of different mechanical circulatory support modalities for refractory cardiogenic shock in takotsubo cardiomyopathy
topic Takotsubo cardiomyopathy
ECMO
Impella
Mechanical circulatory support
Cardiogenic shock
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666602225000485
work_keys_str_mv AT shafaqatali trendsandoutcomesofdifferentmechanicalcirculatorysupportmodalitiesforrefractorycardiogenicshockintakotsubocardiomyopathy
AT manojkumar trendsandoutcomesofdifferentmechanicalcirculatorysupportmodalitiesforrefractorycardiogenicshockintakotsubocardiomyopathy
AT yehyakhlidj trendsandoutcomesofdifferentmechanicalcirculatorysupportmodalitiesforrefractorycardiogenicshockintakotsubocardiomyopathy
AT faryalfarooq trendsandoutcomesofdifferentmechanicalcirculatorysupportmodalitiesforrefractorycardiogenicshockintakotsubocardiomyopathy
AT thannonalsaeed trendsandoutcomesofdifferentmechanicalcirculatorysupportmodalitiesforrefractorycardiogenicshockintakotsubocardiomyopathy
AT muhammadsultan trendsandoutcomesofdifferentmechanicalcirculatorysupportmodalitiesforrefractorycardiogenicshockintakotsubocardiomyopathy
AT pramodkumarponna trendsandoutcomesofdifferentmechanicalcirculatorysupportmodalitiesforrefractorycardiogenicshockintakotsubocardiomyopathy
AT laxmanbyreddi trendsandoutcomesofdifferentmechanicalcirculatorysupportmodalitiesforrefractorycardiogenicshockintakotsubocardiomyopathy
AT pratikagrawal trendsandoutcomesofdifferentmechanicalcirculatorysupportmodalitiesforrefractorycardiogenicshockintakotsubocardiomyopathy
AT vijaywantbrar trendsandoutcomesofdifferentmechanicalcirculatorysupportmodalitiesforrefractorycardiogenicshockintakotsubocardiomyopathy
AT tarekhelmy trendsandoutcomesofdifferentmechanicalcirculatorysupportmodalitiesforrefractorycardiogenicshockintakotsubocardiomyopathy
AT tahertayeb trendsandoutcomesofdifferentmechanicalcirculatorysupportmodalitiesforrefractorycardiogenicshockintakotsubocardiomyopathy