跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT06645990
NCT06645990招募中不适用

Early Left Ventricular unLoading by Impella (ECMELLA) or Intra-aortic Balloon Pump for Cardiogenic Shock in Patients on VA-ECMO

University Hospital, Montpellier1 个研究点 分布在 1 个国家目标入组 500 人开始时间: 2010年1月1日最近更新:
适应症

试验速览

阶段
不适用
状态
招募中
入组人数
500
试验地点
1
主要终点
Myocardial recovery

研究概览

简要总结

Over the past decade, VA-ECMO has become the main mechanical support for cardiogenic shock (CS) unresponsive to medical therapy. However, recent studies failed to show any significant survival benefit at 30 days compared to medical treatment for myocardial infarction-related CS. This could be due to the complications of VA-ECMO, such as LV overload and increased LV distension, which can hinder heart recovery.

To address this, early LV unloading using devices like IABP or Impella (ECMELLA) may help by reducing LV wall stress and oxygen consumption. However, these techniques carry risks, and their benefit is still unclear. A randomized trial is needed to compare these approaches, but observational studies are also contributing to understanding the best strategies

详细描述

Over the last decade, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has become the mechanical circulatory support of choice for cardiogenic shock (CS) refractory to medical treatment. VA-ECMO allows to supplement cardiac function until myocardium recovers, or in bridge to long-term left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or to heart transplant. However, recent randomized controlled trials (RCT) and meta-analysis have failed to demonstrate any benefit of VA-ECMO in terms of 30-day survival compared with optimal medical treatment in CS related to myocardial infarction.

Reasons for these disappointing results are multifactorial. The associated risk of temporary mechanical circulatory support (t-MCS)-related complications might counterbalance any hemodynamic benefit. In addition to hemorrhagic and ischemic complications, the significant myocardial impact due to VA-ECMO drawbacks should not be overlooked. Indeed, while VA-ECMO restores systemic perfusion, it can also lead to an increase in left ventricle (LV) loading conditions. Although LV distension is not consistently observed, recent publications strongly suggest that the origin of LV overload seems to be multifactorial and contributes partially to cardiac remodeling through the modulation of cardioprotective cellular pathways, resulting in reduced cardiomyocyte apoptosis. Furthermore, peripheral VA-ECMO affects myocardial contractility and increases myocardial work (potential energy, stroke work, and pressure-volume area), particularly at native low blood flow.

Thus, cardiac recovery may be compromised and weaning from VA-ECMO delayed. This vicious cycle affects the patients overall prognosis, as delayed and possibly failure of VA-ECMO weaning and may convert the initial medical strategy of recovery towards heart transplantation or LVAD. To optimize the chance of VA-ECMO weaning, early LV unloading may be a good therapeutic option. It aims at increasing coronary flow directly and, indirectly, by improving sub-endocardial myocardial perfusion through decreasing LV wall stress and myocardial oxygen consumption. Currently, 2 techniques are mainly used, the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and the microaxial flow pump as Impella device familly (ECMELLA). These invasive techniques carry risks of bleeding and thromboembolic complications, and the benefit/risk ratio of their use for myocardial recovery is not clearly established.

A few retrospective studies suggest that early left ventricular unloading during VA-ECMO could improve prognosis. In the absence of RCT, the choice of the technique (Impella or IABP) is mainly driven by center practice. A multicenter randomized clinical trial would be the best choice to address this question. However, due to the acute poor prognosis of these patients (50% of early deaths), reliable preliminary data about the expected effect size are necessary to design the most efficient clinical trial. Recent epidemiologic developments of observational studies, the emulated trials, allow a better control of immortal time bias and indication bias.

This innovative multicenter study will compare the effectiveness and safety of LV unloading by Impella (ECMELLA) versus IABP in terms of survival with myocardial recovery in patients with refractory CS

研究设计

研究类型
Observational
观察模型
Cohort
时间视角
Retrospective

入排标准

年龄范围
18 Years 至 —(Adult, Older Adult)
性别
All
接受健康志愿者

入选标准

  • Adult patients (more than or =18 years) admitted for cardiogenic shock supported by ECMO+ IABP or ECMELLA between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2023

排除标准

  • Ongoing extra-corporeal CardioPulmonary Resuscitation (eCPR) at time of ECMO implantation
  • Cardiogenic shock with previous prolonged continuous cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) more than 30 minutes
  • Acute irreversible neurological injury
  • Previous known severe chronic cardiomyopathy (LVEF less than 25%) or awaiting heart transplantation or LVAD implantation
  • Contraindication to the implantation of an Impella or IABP
  • Mechanical complications of myocardial infarction
  • Moribund patient (SAPS more than 90)
  • Previous known severe chronic renal or hepatic failure
  • Age less than18 years

结局指标

主要结局

Myocardial recovery

时间窗: from start of hospitalization until hospital discharge assessed up to 3 month

Hospital Survival without chronic mechanical circulatory support (LVAD) and heart transplantation.

次要结局

  • Early mortality(from start of hospitalization until hospital discharge assessed up to 3 month)
  • Adverse events related to LV unloading technics(from start of hospitalization until hospital discharge assessed up to 3 month)
  • Duration of mechanical ventilation(from start of hospitalization until hospital discharge assessed up to 3 month)
  • Duration of temporary MCS support(from start of hospitalization until hospital discharge assessed up to 3 month)
  • Lengh of stay(from start of hospitalization until hospital discharge assessed up to 3 month)
  • Cardiac long-term project(from start of hospitalization until hospital discharge assessed up to 3 month)

研究者

申办方类型
Other
责任方
Sponsor

研究点 (1)

Loading locations...

相似试验