Table 3.

Comparison of the primary and secondary endpoints between Impella versus ECLS (extracorporal life support) patients

	Event rate		Unadjusted analysis			Propensity‐adjusted analysis
	Impella, n (%)	ECLS, n (%)	OR	95%CI	P‐value	aOR	95%CI	P‐value
30 day mortality	51 (70)	63 (83)	0.48	0.22–1.04	0.06	1.06	0.17–6.75	0.95
Procedural endpoints
Vascular injury	9 (12)	19 (25)	0.42	0.17–1.01	0.054	0.59	0.10–3.50	0.56
Procedural feasibility	68 (93)	61 (80)	3.06	1.02–9.16	0.046	3.14	0.18–56.50	0.41
Clinical endpoints (judged by CRF)
Haemolysis	15 (21)	17 (22)	0.91	0.31–2.72	0.86	0.63	0.08–5.23	0.65
Renal failure	25 (34)	29 (38)	0.85	0.42–1.72	0.66	0.52	0.07–3.72	0.49
Bleeding requiring transfusion	20 (27)	49 (64)	0.20	0.10–0.41	<0.001	0.44	0.09–2.10	0.29
Multi‐organ failure	28 (38)	25 (33)	1.26	0.60–2.62	0.54	1.62	0.18–14.62	0.64

Reported are unadjusted ORs and propensity‐score adjusted aORs with respective 95% CI and P‐values.

CRF, case report‐form; ECLS, extracorporal life support.