Key result
Immediate Impella 5.0 support (33.3% survival) or upgrading from 2.5 to 5.0 (37.5%) suggested improved 30-day survival compared to Impella 2.5 support alone (17.6%) in cardiogenic shock.
Why the study?
Does the Impella 5.0 device improve survival compared to the Impella 2.5 device in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with profound cardiogenic shock?
Population
34 ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with profound cardiogenic shock admitted to the intensive…
Comparison
Impella 5.0 device vs Impella 2.5 device only
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
30 days
Authors
Loading...
May support higher-flow Impella in profound shock; hypothesis-generating and should not change practice without randomized confirmation.
Observational (n=34)
No
Does the Impella 5.0 device improve survival compared to the Impella 2.5 device in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with profound cardiogenic shock?
Absolute Event Rate: 33.3% vs 24%
In STEMI patients with profound cardiogenic shock, initial experience suggests immediate or upgraded use of the Impella 5.0 device may improve survival compared to the Impella 2.5 device alone.
Engström et al. (2011) conducted an observational in ST-elevation myocardial infarction with profound cardiogenic shock (n=34). Impella 5.0 vs. Impella 2.5 was evaluated on Survival at 30 days. Immediate Impella 5.0 support (33.3% survival) or upgrading from 2.5 to 5.0 (37.5%) suggested improved 30-day survival compared to Impella 2.5 support alone (17.6%) in cardiogenic shock.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: