Skip to main content
. 2022 Aug 7;11(3):369–384. doi: 10.1007/s40119-022-00274-6

Table 2.

Summary of major studies of temporary mechanical support in cardiogenic shock

Major studies of device intervention and outcome in cardiogenic shock
Study Year Interventions and objective Design n Etiology Findings
IABP
Thiele et al. (IABP-SHOCK II) [37] 2012 PCI with IABP vs. without in AMI-CS Multicenter RCT 600 AMI-CS Routine use of IABP did not reduce mortality at 30 days (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79–1.17)
Sjauw et al. [38] 2008 ST-elevation myocardial infarction outcomes with/ without CS treated with/without IABP Meta-analysis of RCTs compared to cohort studies 11,538; 10,529 with CS AMI-CS Among RCTs, IABP was not associated with mortality at 30 days (OR 0.01, 95% CI − 0.03 to 0.04; I2 = 0%). Among cohort studies, IABP was associated with improved 30-day mortality (OR − 0.11, 95% CI − 0.13 to − 0.19; I2 = 93.6%)
Unverzagt et al. [40] 2011 AMI-CS outcomes with IABP vs. other or no cardiac assist devices Meta-analysis, RCTs 190 AMI-CS IABP was not associated with improvement in 30-day mortality (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.62–1.73)
Bahekar et al. [39] 2012 AMI outcomes with or without CS treated with or without IABP Meta-analysis, RCTs and cohort studies 11,778; 5272 with CS AMI-CS IABP was associated with improved inpatient mortality (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60–0.86; I2 = 58.9%)
TandemHeart
Thiele et al. [41] 2001 Hemodynamics after placement among patients with AMI-CS Case series 18 AMI-CS Cardiac index improved by 41% on average with concomitant reduction in PCWP, CVP, and pulmonary artery pressure
Burkhoff et al. [43] 2006 Comparison of CS outcomes with IABP vs. TandemHeart Multicenter RCT 42 Any; 70% with AMI-CS TandemHeart improved cardiac index by 0.5 compared to only 0.2 for IABP (p < 0.05). 30-day mortality was 36% in the IABP cohort vs. 47% for TandemHeart (p > 0.05)
Kar et al. [44] 2011 Outcomes in ischemic vs. non-ischemic patients Single-center retrospective cohort 117 Any; 4% with AMI Improved survival with non-ischemic vs. ischemic CS (0.6 vs. 0.4 in Kaplan–Meier analysis, up to 1400 days (p < 0.05)
Ni hIci et al. [48] 2020 Impella or TandemHeart vs. IABP Meta-analysis, RCTs 162 Any No difference in 30-day mortality with Impella or TandemHeart individually compared to IABP (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76–1.35)
IMPELLA
O’Neill et al. [49] 2014 AMI-CS outcomes of Impella 2.5 pre- vs. post-PCI Retrospective database review 154 AMI-CS Pre-PCI patients had more complete revascularization and better survival to discharge (65.1% vs. 40.7%, p = 0.003)
Miyashita et al. [50] 2021 Comparison of AMI-CS pre- vs. post-PCI Meta-analysis, cohort studies 432 AMI-CS Improved mortality acutely (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50–0.76), and at 6 months (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44–0.97; I2 = 0% for all) Pre-PCI patients
Iannaccone et al. [51] 2020 Evaluation of CS outcomes following Impella implant; no comparator group Meta-analysis, cohort studies 2210 Any; 75.9% with AMI With placement of an Impella, 30-day mortality was 47.8%
Chung et al. [52] 2020 Evaluation of CS outcomes (recovery, LVAD, or transplant) Impella 5.0; no comparator group Single-center retrospective cohort 100 Any Overall survival 64%, 50% for patients without definitive advanced heart failure therapy, 48% for patients who underwent durable LVAD, and 81% for patients who underwent transplant