Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 19, 2025

Utilizing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: June 12, 2021
Concomitant Use of VA-ECMO and Impella Support for Cardiogenic Shock
Shan P Modi1, Yeahwa Hong2, McKenzie M Sicke3
1Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Pittsburgh, PA.
Insights
ECpella support effectively manages cardiogenic shock (CS). Survival outcomes were similar for acute myocardial infarction-CS and acute decompensated heart failure-CS, but initial Impella support improved transplant bridging and reduced stroke risk.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Mechanical Circulatory Support
- Critical Care Medicine
Background:
- VA-ECMO with Impella support (ECpella) is an emerging treatment for cardiogenic shock (CS).
- Limited data exists on survival outcomes stratified by CS etiology using ECpella.
Conclusions:
- ECpella is a viable treatment for CS.
- Survival and destination are comparable between AMI-CS and ADHF-CS patients on ECpella.
- Initial Impella support positively impacts survival and transplant candidacy.
- Multicenter studies are needed for further insights.
Background:
VA-ECMO with concomitant Impella support (ECpella) is an emerging treatment modality for cardiogenic shock (CS). Survival outcomes by CS etiology with ECpella support have not been well-described.
Methods:
This study was a retrospective, single-center analysis of patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) or decompensated heart failure (ADHF-CS) supported with ECpella from December 2020 to January 2023. Primary outcomes included 90-day survival post-discharge and destination after support. Secondary outcomes included complications post-ECpella support.
Results:
A total of 44 patients were included (AMI-CS, n = 20, and ADHF-CS, n = 24). Patients with AMI-CS and ADHF-CS had similar survival 90 days post-discharge (p = .267) with similar destinations after ECpella support (p = .220). Limb ischemia and acute kidney injury occurred more frequently in patients presenting with AMI-CS (p=.013; p = .030). Patients with initial Impella support were more likely to survive ECpella support and be bridged to transplant (p=.033) and less likely to have a cerebrovascular accident (p=.016). Sub-analysis of ADHF-CS patients into acute-on-chronic decompensated heart failure and de novo heart failure demonstrated no difference in survival or destination.
Conclusion:
ECpella can be used to successfully manage patients with CS. There is no difference in survival or destination for AMI-CS and ADHF-CS in patients with ECpella support. Patients with initial Impella support are more likely to survive ECpella support and bridge to transplant. Future multicenter studies are required to fully analyze the differences between AMI-CS and ADHF-CS with ECpella support.
More Related Videos
07:41Insertion, Maintenance, and Removal of the Percutaneous Dual Lumen Cannula Right Ventricular Assist Device
Published on: July 20, 2022
03:40Point-of-Care Ultrasound for Peripheral Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Without Left Ventricular Venting
Published on: January 17, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation IV: Pharmacological Management
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation III: AED Use
Heart Failure Drugs: Inotropic Agents
Heart Failure V: Medical Management
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy