Which is better: a miniaturized percutaneous ventricular assist device or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for patients with cardiogenic shock?

The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes associated with the use of Impella and TandemHeart short-term support devices with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy for postinfarction- or decompensated cardiomyopathy-related cardiogenic shock. Between January 2006 and September 2011, 79 patients were supported with either an Impella axial flow pump (n = 7) or a TandemHeart centrifugal pump (n = 11), or with ECMO (n = 61) therapy for cardiogenic shock in a single institution. Pertinent variables and postprocedural events were analyzed in this cohort of patients using a prospectively maintained clinical database. The in-hospital mortality, successful weaning from mechanical circulatory support, bridge to long-term destination support device and heart transplantation, and limb complications did not differ between the 2 groups based on intention-to-treat analysis. Age was the only independent predictor for in-hospital survival. In this cohort of patients, short-term support devices and ECMO achieved comparable results. In the modern era of medical cost restraints, ECMO may be more cost effective for patients with postinfarction- or decompensated cardiomyopathy-related cardiogenic shock. Larger randomized trials may be necessary to further elucidate this topic.