Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 23, 2025

Utilizing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: June 12, 2021
Outcome of patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock supported by percutaneous left ventricular assist device
Jean M Haurand1, Sandra Haberkorn1, Jafer Haschemi1
1Division of Cardiology, Pulmonology, and Vascular Medicine, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Insights
Percutaneous ventricular assist device (pVAD) support effectively stabilizes patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock (CS). This therapy serves as a vital bridge to recovery or advanced treatments like heart transplantation.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Mechanical Circulatory Support
Background:
- Cardiogenic shock (CS) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is commonly treated with percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs).
- Non-ischaemic causes account for approximately half of CS cases and present distinct clinical characteristics compared to AMI-related CS.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the efficacy and utility of pVAD support in patients experiencing non-ischaemic CS.
- To compare outcomes of non-ischaemic CS patients treated with pVADs against those with AMI-related CS.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of 106 patients with CS receiving Impella® support from 2015-2018.
- Propensity score matching created comparable cohorts of 31 non-ischaemic CS patients and 31 AMI-related CS patients.
- Assessment of hemodynamic parameters, catecholamine requirements, lactate levels, and 90-day survival.
Main Results:
- Both non-ischaemic and AMI-related CS groups showed significant improvements in systolic blood pressure, reduced catecholamine needs, and normalized lactate levels within 7 days of pVAD support.
- The need for escalation to veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) or long-term mechanical support was similar in both groups (25.8%).
- Ninety-day survival rates were comparable between the non-ischaemic CS group (48.4%) and the AMI-related CS group (45.2%).
Conclusions:
- Percutaneous ventricular assist device (pVAD) support demonstrates significant utility in the hemodynamic stabilization of patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock.
- pVADs serve as a crucial bridge therapy, facilitating patient recovery or enabling advanced interventions such as long-term mechanical circulatory support and heart transplantation.
Aims:
Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pVADs) are used to haemodynamically stabilize patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) caused by acute myocardial infarction (AMI). One out of every two patients has a non-ischaemic cause of CS, and these patients differ profoundly from patients with AMI-related CS. We assessed the usefulness of pVAD support for patients with non-ischaemic CS.
Methods And Results:
We analysed 106 patients with CS and Impella® support between 2015 and 2018. CS was non-ischaemic in 36 patients and AMI-related in 70 patients. Compared with the AMI group, those in the non-ischaemic group were significantly younger [median age 62 (50.8, 70.8) years vs. 68 (58.0, 75.5) years, P = 0.007] and had more patients with severely reduced left ventricular function (94% vs. 79%, P = 0.035) and worse glomerular filtration rate [45 (27, 57) mL/min vs. 60 (44, 78) mL/min]. Propensity score matching yielded 31 patients with non-ischaemic CS and 31 patients with AMI-related CS, without a difference in baseline laboratory values or comorbidities. In both groups, pVAD support was performed along with haemodynamic stabilization, reduction of catecholamines and normalization of lactate levels. In 7 days, systolic blood pressure increased from 91 (80, 101) mmHg at baseline to 100 (100, 120) mmHg in the non-ischaemic CS group (P = 0.001) and 89 (80, 100) mmHg at baseline to 112 (100, 128) mmHg in the AMI-related CS group (P = 0.001). Moreover, in 7 days, the need of catecholamines (calculated as vasoactive-inotropic score) decreased from 32.0 (11.1, 47.0) at baseline to 5.3 (0, 16.1) in the non-ischaemic group (P = 0.001) and from 35.2 (18.11, 67.0) to zero (0, 0) in the AMI-related CS group (P = 0.001). Lactate level decreased from 3.8 (2.8, 5.9) mmol/L at baseline to 1.0 (0.8, 2.1) mmol/L (P = 0.001) in the non-ischaemic CS group and from 3.8 (2.6, 6.5) mmol/L to 1.2 (1.0, 2.0) mmol/L in the AMI-related group (P = 0.001). In the non-ischaemic CS group, eight patients (25.8%) were upgraded to veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) or long-term mechanical circulatory support. Two of these upgraded patients received heart transplantation. In the AMI group, eight patients (25.8%) were upgraded to VA-ECMO or long-term mechanical circulatory support. Ninety-day survival did not significantly differ between the groups (non-ischaemic CS group 48.4%, AMI-related CS group 45.2%, P = 0.799).
Conclusions:
pVAD support is useful for haemodynamic stabilization of patients with non-ischaemic CS and is valuable as a bridge to patients' recovery or long-term left ventricular support and heart transplantation.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation IV: Pharmacological Management
Heart Failure VI: Adjunct Therapies
Cardiomyopathy III: Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

