Key result
Early IABP during PCI is linked to ~71% lower in-hospital mortality in AMI with cardiogenic shock.
Why the study?
The optimal timing of IABP initiation in AMI-CS remains uncertain, with guidelines highlighting gaps regarding timing, patient selection, and ischemic burden.
Does the timing of IABP initiation (during vs after PCI) improve in-hospital and 1-year mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock?
Cohort (n=399)
Yes
Does the timing of IABP initiation (during vs after PCI) improve in-hospital and 1-year mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock?
Odds Ratio: 0.29 (95% CI 0.16–0.52)
Absolute Event Rate: 32.9% vs 50%
p-value: p=<0.001
Early initiation of IABP during primary PCI for AMI-CS is associated with improved in-hospital and 1-year survival, particularly in patients with a moderate myocardial area at risk.
Early IABP timing may associate with survival by AAR in AMI-CS; leaves open optimal initiation pending randomized data.
BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) initiation in cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains uncertain. Contemporary ESC guidance and the recent EACTS/STS/AATS MCS guideline highlight gaps regarding timing, patient selection, and ischemic burden. In this study, the association between IABP timing, myocardial area at risk (AAR), and survival in AMI-CS was evaluated. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 399 AMI-CS patients treated with primary PCI at two tertiary centers. Patients were categorized as no IABP (n = 124), non-rescue IABP (started during PCI; n = 216), or rescue IABP (inserted after PCI; n = 59). Clinical and angiographic parameters, including AAR quantified by a coronary anatomy-based algorithm, were assessed. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of in-hospital and 1-year mortality. RESULTS: Non-rescue IABP was independently associated with lower in-hospital mortality vs. no IABP (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16-0.52). Rescue IABP showed a weaker association with lower in-hospital mortality (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19-0.89). At 1 year, mortality was higher in both no IABP (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.86-5.76) and rescue IABP groups (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.04-3.98) compared with non-rescue IABP. An augmented inverse-probability weighted (AIPW) analysis confirmed these findings, demonstrating a significant reduction in 1-year mortality with early IABP use compared with no IABP (ATE - 0.24, 95% CI - 0.375 to - 0.104), whereas no significant effect was observed for rescue IABP. A significant interaction between AAR and timing indicated that early IABP offered the greatest benefit in patients with moderate AAR (30-55%), whereas no benefit was observed with extensive AAR (> 80%). CONCLUSIONS: In AMI-CS, early IABP initiation was associated with improved in-hospital and long-term survival, particularly in patients with a moderate AAR. These findings support the need for refining IABP use based on both ischemic burden and the timing of hemodynamic support. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: DRKS00038637, 03.12.2025.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bojti et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (n=399). Early (non-rescue) intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) vs. No IABP was evaluated on In-hospital mortality (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16-0.52, p=<0.001). Early initiation of an intra-aortic balloon pump during primary percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a significant reduction in in-hospital mortality (OR 0.29) compared to no IABP in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: