Vincent Balmette
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Vincent Balmette has a total of 19 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Alessandro Cosenza
Cardiology Department (E.V.B., N.D., F.V., C.D., G.S., H.S., S.P., T.P., T.D., X.N., B.V., M.R.), France
1 shared publication - André Vincentelli
Heart and Lung Institute, Cardiac Surgery Department, CHU Lille, F-59000
1 shared publication - Basile Verdier
USIC et Centre Hémodynamique, Institut Coeur Poumon, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille, 59000 Lille, France
1 shared publication - Clément Delmas
Cardiology Department, Toulouse University Hospital, University of Toulouse , Toulouse
1 shared publication - Cédric Delhaye
Cardiology Department (E.V.B., N.D., F.V., C.D., G.S., H.S., S.P., T.P., T.D., X.N., B.V., M.R.), France
1 shared publication - Emmanuel Robin
University Hospital of Lille, France
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 14 February 2021
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Clinical Medicine
- Vol. 10 (4) , 759
IMPELLA® or Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Left Ventricular Dominant Refractory Cardiogenic Shock
Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are effective tools in managing refractory cardiogenic shock (CS). Data comparing veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and IMPELLA® are however scarce. We aimed to assess outcomes of patients implanted with these two devices and eligible to both systems. From 2004 to 2020, we retrospectively analyzed 128 patients who underwent VA-ECMO or IMPELLA® in our institution for refractory left ventricle (LV) dominant CS. All patients were eligible to both systems: 97 patients were first implanted with VA-ECMO and 31 with IMPELLA®. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause death. VA-ECMO patients were younger (52 vs. 59.4, p = 0.006) and had a higher lactate level at baseline than those in the IMPELLA® group (6.84 vs. 3.03 mmol/L, p < 0.001). Duration of MCS was similar between groups (9.4 days vs. 6 days in the VA-ECMO and IMPELLA® groups respectively, p = 0.077). In unadjusted analysis, no significant difference was observed between groups in 30-day mortality: 43.3% vs. 58.1% in the VA-ECMO and IMPELLA® groups, respectively (p = 0.152). After adjustment, VA-ECMO was associated with a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (HR = 0.25, p = 0.004). A higher rate of MCS escalation was observed in the IMPELLA® group: 32.3% vs. 10.3% (p = 0.003). In patients eligible to either VA-ECMO or IMPELLA® for LV dominant refractory CS, VA-ECMO was associated with improved survival rate and a lower need for escalation.
- 14 February 2021
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Clinical Medicine
- Vol. 10 (4) , 759
Open AccessIMPELLA® or Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Left Ventricular Dominant Refractory Cardiogenic Shock
Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are effective tools in managing refractory cardiogenic shock (CS). Data comparing veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and IMPELLA® are however scarce. We aimed to assess outcomes of patients implanted with these two devices and eligible to both systems. From 2004 to 2020, we retrospectively analyzed 128 patients who underwent VA-ECMO or IMPELLA® in our institution for refractory left ventricle (LV) dominant CS. All patients were eligible to both systems: 97 patients were first implanted with VA-ECMO and 31 with IMPELLA®. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause death. VA-ECMO patients were younger (52 vs. 59.4, p = 0.006) and had a higher lactate level at baseline than those in the IMPELLA® group (6.84 vs. 3.03 mmol/L, p < 0.001). Duration of MCS was similar between groups (9.4 days vs. 6 days in the VA-ECMO and IMPELLA® groups respectively, p = 0.077). In unadjusted analysis, no significant difference was observed between groups in 30-day mortality: 43.3% vs. 58.1% in the VA-ECMO and IMPELLA® groups, respectively (p = 0.152). After adjustment, VA-ECMO was associated with a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (HR = 0.25, p = 0.004). A higher rate of MCS escalation was observed in the IMPELLA® group: 32.3% vs. 10.3% (p = 0.003). In patients eligible to either VA-ECMO or IMPELLA® for LV dominant refractory CS, VA-ECMO was associated with improved survival rate and a lower need for escalation.