Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 26, 2026

Utilizing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: June 12, 2021
Percutaneous assist devices in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: Review, meta-analysis
Francesco Romeo1, Maria Cristina Acconcia1, Domenico Sergi1
1Francesco Romeo, Domenico Sergi, Alessia Romeo, Department of Cardiovascular Disease, University of Rome - Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy.
Insights
Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use in cardiogenic shock (CS) after myocardial infarction (MI) increased in-hospital mortality. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) with IABP significantly reduced mortality compared to IABP alone.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Intensive Care Medicine
- Mechanical Circulatory Support
Background:
- Cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has a high mortality rate.
- Percutaneous cardiac support devices are used to improve outcomes in these patients.
- The comparative effectiveness of different support strategies remains an area of active research.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the impact of percutaneous cardiac support devices on in-hospital and late mortality in patients with CS due to AMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
- To compare intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (PLVADs), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in this patient population.
Main Methods:
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published between 1997 and 2015.
- Included studies compared IABP vs. medical therapy, PLVADs vs. IABP, ECMO + IABP vs. IABP alone, and ECMO + IABP vs. ECMO alone.
- Primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality; secondary endpoint was late mortality at 6-12 months.
Main Results:
- Thirty studies involving 15,799 patients were included.
- In-hospital mortality was significantly higher with IABP compared to medical therapy (RR = +15%, P = 0.0002).
- ECMO plus IABP significantly reduced in-hospital mortality compared to IABP alone (RR = -44%, P = 0.0008) and ECMO alone (RR = -20%, P = 0.006).
- PLVADs did not significantly reduce early mortality compared to IABP (RR = +14%, P = 0.21).
Conclusions:
- Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) therapy is associated with increased in-hospital mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock.
- Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (PLVADs) did not demonstrate a significant reduction in early mortality.
- Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in conjunction with IABP offers a significant survival benefit compared to IABP or ECMO alone in this high-risk group.
Aim:
To assess the impact of percutaneous cardiac support in cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI), treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.
Methods:
We selected all of the studies published from January 1(st), 1997 to May 15(st), 2015 that compared the following percutaneous mechanical support in patients with CS due to AMI undergoing myocardial revascularization: (1) intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) vs Medical therapy; (2) percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (PLVADs) vs IABP; (3) complete extracorporeal life support with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) plus IABP vs IABP alone; and (4) ECMO plus IABP vs ECMO alone, in patients with AMI and CS undergoing myocardial revascularization. We evaluated the impact of the support devices on primary and secondary endpoints. Primary endpoint was the inhospital mortality due to any cause during the same hospital stay and secondary endpoint late mortality at 6-12 mo of follow-up.
Results:
One thousand two hundred and seventy-two studies met the initial screening criteria. After detailed review, only 30 were selected. There were 6 eligible randomized controlled trials and 24 eligible observational studies totaling 15799 patients. We found that the inhospital mortality was: (1) significantly higher with IABP support vs medical therapy (RR = +15%, P = 0.0002); (2) was higher, although not significantly, with PLVADs compared to IABP (RR = +14%, P = 0.21); and (3) significantly lower in patients treated with ECMO plus IABP vs IABP (RR = -44%, P = 0.0008) or ECMO (RR = -20%, P = 0.006) alone. In addition, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that in the comparison of IABP vs medical therapy, the sample size was adequate to demonstrate a significant increase in risk due to IABP.
Conclusion:
Inhospital mortality was significantly higher with IABP vs medical therapy. PLVADs did not reduce early mortality. ECMO plus IABP significantly reduced inhospital mortality compared to IABP.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation IV: Pharmacological Management
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation III: AED Use
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care

