Key result
Impella linked to ~44% higher mortality vs IABP in CS-AMI.
Why the study?
The comparative efficacy of Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump and Impella in managing cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction remains uncertain.
Does Impella reduce mortality and adverse events compared to IABP in patients with acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock?
Meta-Analysis (n=10,628)
Does Impella reduce mortality and adverse events compared to IABP in patients with acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock?
Odds Ratio: 1.44 (95% CI 1.29–1.6)
Absolute Event Rate: 57% vs 46%
p-value: p=< 0.001
In unselected patients with AMI-related cardiogenic shock, the use of Impella is associated with significantly higher mortality and major bleeding compared to IABP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Impella associated with higher mortality and bleeding than IABP in CS-AMI; challenges device preference and leaves open need for definitive RCTs.
Ferrari et al. (2024) conducted a meta-analysis in Cardiogenic Shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (n=10,628). Impella vs. Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) was evaluated on mortality (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29-1.60, p=< 0.001). Impella use in patients with CS-AMI was associated with significantly higher mortality compared to IABP (57% vs. 46%; OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.29-1.60; p < 0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: