Abstract
This review aims to discuss the role of ECMO in the treatment of cardiogenic shock in heart failure. Trials done previously have shown that IABP does not improve survival in cardiogenic shock compared to medical treatment, and that neither Impella 2.5 nor TandemHeart improves survival compared to IABP. The "IMPRESS in severe shock" trial compared Impella CP with IABP and found no difference in survival. A meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing ECMO with IABP showed 33% improved 30-day survival with ECMO (risk difference 33%; 95% CI 14-52%; p= 0.0008; NNT 3). ECMO is indicated in medically refractory cardiogenic shock. ECMO can be considered in cardiogenic shock patients with estimated mortality of more than 50%. ECMO is probably the MCS of choice in cardiogenic shock with; biventricular failure, respiratory failure, life-threatening arrhythmias and cardiac arrest.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
