Outcomes of mechanical circulatory support for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 1, 2025

Utilizing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: June 12, 2021
Yeunjung Kim1, Kayle Shapero2, Shawn S Ahn3
1Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Insights
Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with Impella devices showed increased in-hospital mortality and costs compared to intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMICS) patients. Further randomized trials are needed to confirm safety and efficacy.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Medical Devices
- Health Outcomes Research
Background:
- Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is used in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMICS).
- Previous data suggested higher in-hospital mortality with Impella devices compared to intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP).
Purpose of the Study:
- To describe trends and outcomes of Impella usage in AMICS patients treated with MCS.
- To compare in-hospital mortality, transfusion rates, acute kidney injury, stroke, costs, and length of stay between Impella and IABP.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective cohort study using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2012-2017.
- Included hospitalizations for AMICS managed with MCS (Impella or IABP).
- Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounders.
Main Results:
- Impella usage increased from 10.5% to 19.9% of AMICS cases between 2012 and 2017.
- After matching, Impella was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (OR 1.74) and transfusion rates (OR 1.97) than IABP.
- Impella use resulted in significantly higher hospital costs (mean difference $22,416.80).
Conclusions:
- Impella use in AMICS has increased significantly and is linked to higher in-hospital mortality and costs.
- No significant association was found with acute kidney injury or stroke.
- Randomized controlled trials are essential to evaluate Impella's safety and efficacy in AMICS.
Background:
Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with the Impella device (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) has been associated with higher in-hospital mortality than intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in the Premier Healthcare Database and National Cardiovascular Data Registry.
Methods:
The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to describe trends and outcomes of Impella usage in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) treated with MCS (Impella or IABP) using real-world observational data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) including hospitalizations for AMICS managed with MCS between January 2012 to December 2017. The primary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, transfusion, acute kidney injury, stroke, total costs, and length of stay. Propensity score matching was performed with hierarchical models using risk factor and Elixhauser comorbidity variables.
Results And Conclusion:
We identified 54,480 hospitalizations for AMICS managed with MCS including 5750 (10.5%) utilizing Impella. Throughout the study period, Impella usage increased yearly to 19.9% of AMICS cases in 2017. After propensity score matching, Impella was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41-2.13) and transfusions (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.40-2.78) than IABP, without association with acute kidney injury or stroke. Impella use was associated with higher hospital costs (mean difference $22,416.80 [95% CI $17,029-27,804]). Impella usage for AMICS increased significantly from 2012 to 2017 and was associated with increased in-hospital mortality and costs. Randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to assess the safety and efficacy of Impella.
Related Concept Videos
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation IV: Pharmacological Management
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Cardiomyopathy III: Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Heart Failure V: Medical Management

