Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2014 Feb;27(1):1-11.
doi: 10.1111/joic.12080. Epub 2013 Dec 13.

The current use of Impella 2.5 in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the USpella Registry

William W O'Neill  1 , Theodore Schreiber, David H W Wohns, Charanjit Rihal, Srihari S Naidu, Andrew B Civitello, Simon R Dixon, Joseph M Massaro, Brijeshwar Maini, E Magnus Ohman
Affiliations
Comparative Study

The current use of Impella 2.5 in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the USpella Registry

William W O'Neill et al. J Interv Cardiol. 2014 Feb.

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the periprocedural characteristics and outcomes of patients supported with Impella 2.5 prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (pre-PCI) versus those who received it after PCI (post-PCI) in the setting of cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating an acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Background: Early mechanical circulatory support may improve outcome in the setting of CS complicating an AMI. However, the optimal timing to initiate hemodynamic support has not been well characterized.

Methods: Data from 154 consecutive patients who underwent PCI and Impella 2.5 support from 38 US hospitals participating in the USpella Registry were included in our study. The primary end-point was survival to discharge. Secondary end-points included assessment of patients' hemodynamics and in-hospital complications. A multivariate regression model was used to identify independent predictors for mortality.

Results: Both groups were comparable except for diabetes (P = 0.02), peripheral vascular disease (P = 0.008), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = 0.05), and prior stroke (P = 0.04), all of which were more prevalent in the pre-PCI group. Patients in the pre-PCI group had more lesions (P = 0.006) and vessels (P = 0.01) treated. These patients had also significantly better survival to discharge compared to patients in the post-PCI group (65.1% vs.40.7%, P = 0.003). Survival remained favorable for the pre-PCI group after adjusting for potential confounding variables. Initiation of support prior to PCI with Impella 2.5 was an independent predictor of in-hospital survival (Odds ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval: 0.17-0.79, P = 0.01) in multivariate analysis. The incidence of in-hospital complications included in the secondary end-point was similar between the 2 groups.

Conclusions: The results of our study suggest that early initiation of hemodynamic support prior to PCI with Impella 2.5 is associated with more complete revascularization and improved survival in the setting of refractory CS complicating an AMI.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Patient flow chart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Baseline characteristics.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Kaplan-Meier curve survival to 30 days. CS, cardiogenic shock; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; MAP, mean arterial pressure; MV, mechanical ventilation; NSTEMI, non-ST elevation myocardial infarction; PVD, peripheral vascular disease; SBP, systolic blood pressure.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Sub-group outcome to discharge. CS, cardiogenic shock; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; MAP, mean arterial pressure; MV, mechanical ventilation; NSTEMI, non-ST elevation myocardial infarction; PVD, peripheral vascular disease; SBP, systolic blood pressure.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Treatment strategies.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Jeger RV, Radovanovic D, Hunziker PR, et al. Ten-year trends in the incidence and treatment of cardiogenic shock. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:618–626. - PubMed
    1. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:e44–e122. - PubMed
    1. Goldberg R, Spencer FA, Gore JM, et al. Thirty-year trends (1975 to 2005) in the magnitude of, management of, and hospital death rates associated with cardiogenic shock in patients with acute myocardial infarction. A population-based perspective. Circulation. 2009;119:1211–1219. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, et al. A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:1584–1588. - PubMed
    1. O’Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, et al. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: The PROTECT II study. Circulation. 2012;126:1717–1727. - PubMed

Publication types