Comparison of mechanical resuscitation by an LV Impella device to extracorporeal resuscitation using VAECMO in a large animal model.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is an effective treatment for cardiac arrest (CA). Percutaneous left ventricular (LV) assist devices such as the Impella ECP (intravascular CPR [ICPR]) have been proposed as a less invasive alternative. The aim of this study was to explore the haemodynamic differences between ECPR and ICPR using a large animal model of electrically induced CA. Fourteen juvenile female German landrace pigs (72.4 ± 9.8 kg) were subjected to electrically induced CA for 5 mins followed by either ECPR (veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [VA-ECMO]) or ICPR (Impella ECP). Haemodynamic parameters and echocardiographic ventricular function indicators were monitored. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) was continued until five hours after the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), when the devices were removed. Resuscitation outcomes and the haemodynamic effects of ECPR and ICPR were compared. The cannulation time for ECMO (469 ± 129 s) was significantly longer than the time for Impella device implantation (153 ± 64 s, p < 0.001). ECPR facilitated ROSC in 6/6 animals, whereas ICPR facilitated ROSC in 6/8 animals (p = 0.19). Echocardiography revealed no difference in LV or right ventricular (RV) dysfunction between the ECPR- and ICPR-treated animals after resuscitation (LV-global longitudinal strain [GLS] 3 h post-ROSC: ICPR: - 16.5 ± 5.6% vs. ECPR: - 13.7 ± 5.9%, p = 0.99; RV-GLS 3 h post-ROSC: ICPR: - 15.9 ± 3.3% vs. ECPR: - 17.3 ± 10.6%, p = 0.99). MCS using VA-ECMO and the Impella device both provided effective haemodynamic support during CA and post-ROSC in this large animal model. Despite LV unloading conferring a hypothetical advantage for ICPR, no significant differences in myocardial recovery were observed.