Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Crit Care Med. 2017 Nov;45(11):1922–1929. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002676

Table 2.

Randomized controlled trials of percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVAD) compared to intra-aortic balloon (IABP) counterpulsation for cardiogenic shock.

Study Date Condition Device Control Total Sample Size Primary Outcome Mortality at 30 days IABP vs. pVAD
Ouweneel et al17 2017 Cardiogenic Shock Impella CP
n=24		 IABP
n=24		 48 30-day mortality 50% vs. 46%**
Ouweneel et al23 2016 Cardiogenic Pre-Shock Impella 2.5
n=12		 IABP
n=9		 21 LV ejection fraction at 4 months 11% vs. 25% **
Seyfarth et al22 2008 Cardiogenic Shock Impella 2.5
n=12* 		IABP
n=13		 26 Cardiac index 46% vs. 46%**
Thiele et al32 2005 Cardiogenic Shock TandemHeart
n=21		 IABP
n=20		 41 Cardiac power index 45% vs. 43%**
Burkhoff et al33 2006 Cardiogenic Shock TandemHeart
n=19		 IABP
n=14		 33 Hemodynamic improvement 64% vs. 53%**

Key: CP, Cardiac Power; IABP, intra-aortic balloon pump; LV, left ventricular;

*

one patient died prior to implant;

**

Not significant