ECMO and Short-term Support for Cardiogenic Shock in Heart Failure.PURPOSE OF REVIEW
 This review aims to discuss the role of ECMO in the treatment of cardiogenic shock in heart failure.


 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.
ECMO
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). 
IABP
The "IMPRESS in severe shock" trial compared Impella CP with IABP and found no difference in survival. 
Impella CP
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. 
TandemHeart
The "IMPRESS in severe shock" trial compared Impella CP with IABP and found no difference in survival. 
IMPRESS in severe shock