Key result
Impella CP shows no significant 30-day survival difference between non-ischaemic and ischaemic cardiogenic shock.
Why the study?
Use of the Impella CP pump is usually restricted to acute ischaemic shock or high-risk interventions, leaving its clinical usefulness in non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock unclear.
Does the use of the Impella CP device result in comparable outcomes in non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock compared to ischaemic cardiogenic shock?
Cohort (n=75)
No
Does the use of the Impella CP device result in comparable outcomes in non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock compared to ischaemic cardiogenic shock?
Absolute Event Rate: 48% vs 30%
p-value: p=0.126
The temporary use of the Impella CP device provides comparable 30-day survival and in-hospital mortality in patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock compared to those with ischaemic cardiogenic shock.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
No significant survival difference by shock etiology with Impella CP; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation.
Maniuc et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Cardiogenic shock (n=75). Impella CP for non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock vs. Impella CP for ischaemic cardiogenic shock was evaluated on 30 day survival (p=0.126). Among patients receiving Impella CP, 30-day survival was 48% in those with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock versus 30% in those with ischaemic cardiogenic shock (P=0.126).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: