Why the study?
Outcomes with pLVAD may differ between AMI-CS and non-AMI CS due to differing pathophysiology and trajectories.
Does percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD) support in AMI-related cardiogenic shock result in worse outcomes compared to non-AMI cardiogenic shock in adults?
Population
Adults with CS treated with pLVAD, propensity matched into two cohorts of n = 2,026 each
Comparison
AMI-CS vs non-AMI CS
Design
Retrospective cohort study
Follow-up
180 days
Key result
Among patients with cardiogenic shock treated with pLVAD, acute myocardial infarction-related shock was associated with higher 30-day mortality compared to non-AMI shock (HR 1.19, p=0.002).
Authors
Loading...
In real-world practice, patients receiving pLVAD for AMI-related cardiogenic shock experience higher short- and medium-term mortality and heart failure-related morbidity than those with non-AMI cardiogenic shock.
Cohort (n=11,394)
Yes
Does percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD) support in AMI-related cardiogenic shock result in worse outcomes compared to non-AMI cardiogenic shock in adults?
Hazard Ratio: 1.19
p-value: p=0.002
In real-world practice, patients receiving pLVAD for AMI-related cardiogenic shock experience higher short- and medium-term mortality and heart failure-related morbidity than those with non-AMI cardiogenic shock.
Vempati et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Cardiogenic shock treated with pLVAD (n=11,394). Acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) vs. Non-AMI cardiogenic shock (non-AMI CS) was evaluated on Mortality at 30 days (HR 1.19, p=0.002). Among patients with cardiogenic shock treated with pLVAD, acute myocardial infarction-related shock was associated with higher 30-day mortality compared to non-AMI shock (HR 1.19, p=0.002).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: