CorrespondenceWe appreciate the comments by Dr Maini regarding our recent article on outcome of percutaneous left-ventricular support with the Impella-2.5 assist device in acute cardiogenic shock.1 In this article, we summarize the results of real-world Impella-2.5 use in Europe outside of randomized trials, where the device is frequently used as last resort option in patients unresponsive to vasopressors, revascularization, and intra-aortic balloon pump support.We agree with Dr Maini in emphasizing the fact that the disappointing data of the EUROSHOCK Registry likely reflects the selection of the most severely ill patients who have failed first-line treatment of cardiogenic shock. The lack of a control group in this registry hampers definite conclusions on efficacy of Impella-2.5 support at this point. However, decrease in plasma lactate after the beginning of Impella support suggests at least partial reversal of hypoperfusion and supports the hemodynamic efficacy of the device. As suggested in the article, earlier institution of support and rapid escalation to more powerful assist devices could be a recommended strategy in patients failing to improve, which, however, is currently rather based on experience than actual data. 1,2 DisclosuresDr Henriques has received an unrestricted research grant from Abiomed Europe GmbH, Aachen, Germany. The other authors report no conflict. Alexander Lauten, MD

The majority of the PAH and CTEPH patients were diagnosed at age >65 years, in functional class III-IV, and exhibiting several comorbidities. PAH survival in SPAHR was similar to other registers.

Background-Acute cardiogenic shock after myocardial infarction is associated with high in-hospital mortality attributable to persisting low-cardiac output. The Impella-EUROSHOCK-registry evaluates the safety and efficacy of the Impella-2.5-percutaneous left-ventricular assist device in patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. Methods and Results-This multicenter registry retrospectively included 120 patients (63.6±12.2 years; 81.7% male) with cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction receiving temporary circulatory support with the Impella-2.5-percutaneous left-ventricular assist device. The primary end point evaluated mortality at 30 days. The secondary end point analyzed the change of plasma lactate after the institution of hemodynamic support, and the rate of early major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events as well as long-term survival. Thirty-day mortality was 64.2% in the study population. After Impella-2.5-percutaneous left-ventricular assist device implantation, lactate levels decreased from 5.8±5.0 mmol/L to 4.7±5.4 mmol/L (P=0.28) and 2.5±2.6 mmol/L (P=0.023) at 24 and 48 hours, respectively. Early major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were reported in 18 (15%) patients. Major bleeding at the vascular access site, hemolysis, and pericardial tamponade occurred in 34 (28.6%), 9 (7.5%), and 2 (1.7%) patients, respectively. The parameters of age >65 and lactate level >3.8 mmol/L at admission were identified as predictors of 30-day mortality. After 317±526 days of follow-up, survival was 28.3%. Conclusions-In patients with acute cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction, Impella 2.5-treatment is feasible and results in a reduction of lactate levels, suggesting improved organ perfusion. However, 30-day mortality remains high in these patients. This likely reflects the last-resort character of Impella-2.5-application in selected patients with a poor hemodynamic profile and a greater imminent risk of death. Carefully conducted randomized controlled trials are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of Impella-2.5-support in this high-risk patient group. (Circ Heart Fail. 2013;6:23-30.)Key Words: cardiogenic shock ■ Impella-2.5-device ■ mechanical circulatory support ■ percutaneous left-ventricular assist device