Background: Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices are increasingly used in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), despite limited evidence for their effectiveness. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes associated with use of the Impella device compared with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and medical treatment in patients with AMI-CS. Methods: Data of patients with AMI-CS treated with the Impella device at European tertiary care hospitals were collected retrospectively. All patients underwent early revascularization and received optimal medical treatment. Using IABP-SHOCK II (Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II) trial inclusion and exclusion criteria, 372 patients were identified and included in this analysis. These patients were matched to 600 patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial. The following baseline criteria were used as matching parameters: age, sex, mechanical ventilation, ejection fraction, prior cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and lactate. Primary end point was 30-day all-cause mortality. Results: In total, 237 patients treated with an Impella could be matched to 237 patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial. Baseline parameters were similarly distributed after matching. There was no significant difference in 30-day all-cause mortality (48.5% versus 46.4%, P =0.64). Severe or life-threatening bleeding (8.5% versus 3.0%, P <0.01) and peripheral vascular complications (9.8% versus 3.8%, P =0.01) occurred significantly more often in the Impella group. Limiting the analysis to IABP-treated patients as a control group did not change the results. Conclusions: In this retrospective analysis of patients with AMI-CS, the use of an Impella device was not associated with lower 30-day mortality compared with matched patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial treated with an IABP or medical therapy. To further evaluate this, a large randomized trial is warranted to determine the effect of the Impella device on outcome in patients with AMI-CS. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03313687.

Background: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used to treat cardiogenic shock. However, VA-ECMO might hamper myocardial recovery. The Impella unloads the left ventricle. The aim of this study was to evaluate if left ventricular unloading in cardiogenic shock patients treated with VA-ECMO was associated with lower mortality. Methods: Data from 686 consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO with or without left ventricular unloading (using an Impella) at 16 tertiary-care centers in 4 countries were collected. The association between left ventricular unloading and 30-day mortality was assessed by Cox regression models in a 1:1 propensity-score-matched cohort. Results: Left ventricular unloading was used in 337 of the 686 patients (49%). After matching, 255 patients with left ventricular unloading were compared with 255 patients without left ventricular unloading. In the matched cohort, left ventricular unloading was associated with lower 30-day mortality (hazard ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.63-0.98, p=0.03) without differences in various subgroups. Complications occurred more frequently in patients with left ventricular unloading; e.g. severe bleeding in 98 (38.4%) vs. 45 (17.9%), access-site related ischemia in 55 (21.6%) vs. 31 (12.3%), abdominal compartment in 23 (9.4%) vs. 9 (3.7%) and renal replacement therapy in 148 (58.5%) vs. 99 (39.1%). Conclusions: In this international, multicenter cohort study, left ventricular unloading was associated with lower mortality in cardiogenic shock patients treated with VA-ECMO, despite higher complication rates. These findings support use of left ventricular unloading in cardiogenic shock patients treated with VA-ECMO and call for further validation, ideally in a randomized, controlled trial.

Between 2014 and 2016, the need for ECS remained stable around 0.7%. Left ventricular guidewire perforation and annular rupture were the most frequent causes, accounting for almost half of ECS cases. Half of the patients could be salvaged by ECS-nevertheless, 1 year of all-cause mortality was high even in those ECS patients surviving the in-hospital period.

No abstract

Aims Despite its high incidence and mortality risk, there is no evidence‐based treatment for non‐ischaemic cardiogenic shock (CS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for non‐ischaemic CS treatment. Methods and results In this multicentre, international, retrospective study, data from 890 patients with non‐ischaemic CS, defined as CS due to severe de‐novo or acute‐on‐chronic heart failure with no need for urgent revascularization, treated with or without active MCS, were collected. The association between active MCS use and the primary endpoint of 30‐day mortality was assessed in a 1:1 propensity‐matched cohort. MCS was used in 386 (43%) patients. Patients treated with MCS presented with more severe CS (37% vs. 23% deteriorating CS, 30% vs. 25% in extremis CS) and had a lower left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline (21% vs. 25%). After matching, 267 patients treated with MCS were compared with 267 patients treated without MCS. In the matched cohort, MCS use was associated with a lower 30‐day mortality (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.59–0.97). This finding was consistent through all tested subgroups except when CS severity was considered, indicating risk reduction especially in patients with deteriorating CS. However, complications occurred more frequently in patients with MCS; e.g. severe bleeding (16.5% vs. 6.4%) and access‐site related ischaemia (6.7% vs. 0%). Conclusion In patients with non‐ischaemic CS, MCS use was associated with lower 30‐day mortality as compared to medical therapy only, but also with more complications. Randomized trials are needed to validate these findings.