Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 26, 2026

Use of a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device/Left Atrium to Femoral Artery Bypass System for Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: August 16, 2021
Availability of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and hospital survival in ST-segment elevation myocardial
Karl Heinrich Scholz1,2,3, Florian Weiser4, Tim Friede4
1Department of Cardiology and Intensive Care, St. Bernward Hospital, Hildesheim, Germany.
Insights
Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) availability did not impact hospital survival for ST-elevation myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS) patients. Outcomes were similar in centers with and without MCS, suggesting no survival benefit from MCS availability in this population.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
- Critical Care Medicine
Background:
- ST-elevation myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS) is a severe condition where mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may improve survival.
- It remains unclear whether centers with MCS availability offer better outcomes for STEMI-CS patients compared to those without.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the association between MCS availability and prognosis in STEMI-CS patients.
- To compare hospital mortality rates in STEMI-CS patients treated in centers with and without MCS.
Main Methods:
- Secondary analysis of the prospective FITT-STEMI registry.
- Comparison of hospital mortality between STEMI-CS patients treated in MCS centers versus non-MCS centers.
- Statistical analysis including multivariable adjustment and propensity score matching.
Main Results:
- A total of 5604 STEMI-CS patients were analyzed (2013-2022).
- Hospital mortality was 44.7% in MCS centers and 45.0% in non-MCS centers (OR 0.985, p=0.820), with no significant difference after adjustments or matching.
- Patients in MCS centers were younger and less frequently resuscitated, but had longer contact-to-balloon times.
Conclusions:
- Hospital survival for STEMI-CS patients did not differ significantly between centers with and without MCS availability.
- The availability of MCS in a center does not appear to influence survival outcomes for STEMI-CS patients in this large registry analysis.
Background:
In myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock, especially in the subgroup of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI-CS), mechanical circulatory support (MCS) might improve survival. If centers with MCS availability (MCS centers) have better outcome in STEMI-CS compared to those without MCS availability (non-MCS centers) is unknown.
Aim:
To analyze the association of the availability of MCS and prognosis in STEMI-CS.
Methods:
Secondary analysis of the prospective "Feedback Intervention and Treatment Times in ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction" (FITT-STEMI) registry comparing outcome in STEMI-CS treated in MCS and non-MCS centers. Primary endpoint was hospital mortality.
Results:
Between 2013 and 2022, a total of 5604 patients with STEMI-CS at hospital admission were included (mean age 65.3 years, rate of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) 86.5%, hospital mortality 44.7%). Of these, 4340/5604 (77.4%) STEMI-CS were treated in MCS centers compared to 1264/5604 (22.6%) in non-MCS centers. Patients in MCS centers were younger (65.1 versus 66.0 years, respectively, p = 0.045), were less-frequently resuscitated in-hospital (31.4% versus 35.1%, respectively, p = 0.013), and had longer contact-to-balloon times (120.7 versus 114.6 minutes, respectively, p = 0.008). Hospital mortality was 44.7% in MCS centers compared to 45.0% in non-MCS centers (OR 0.985, 95%CI 0.869-1.118, p = 0.820). Results remained consistent after adjustment for time trends and center effects (OR 0.936, 95%CI 0.804-1.091, p = 0.397) and after stratification by SCAI shock stage at presentation. After propensity score matching, again hospital mortality was similar in MCS and non-MCS centers (45.8% versus 43.7%, OR 1.070, 95%CI 0.888-1.288, p = 0.478).
Conclusion:
In this large registry of patients with STEMI-CS, hospital survival did not differ between centers with and without MCS availability.
Related Concept Videos
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation IV: Pharmacological Management
Cardiomyopathy III: Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
