Background: There are non-randomized data about the benefits of Impella use in the setting of cardiogenic shock. However, limited data exist to help guide clinicians about whether in the context of the intervention the device should be implanted early or late; how long the device should stay in; and how the mode of explant should be.
Methods: This is a retrospective, single center registry over 5 years comparing in-hospital outcomes and 1-year mortality in all-comers who had the Impella device placed early versus those who had the device placed late as a bailout. The primary endpoint was a composite of in-hospital all-cause mortality, major vascular, bleeding complications, and stroke. A secondary endpoint was 1-year mortality.
Results: Of 262 total patients, 181 (69.1%) had early and 81 (30.9%) had late Impella placement. Patients in the early group had a lower combined MACCE (17.1% vs 59.3%, P < 0.001) and in-hospital mortality (8.8% vs 48.1%, P < 0.001) compared to the late group. Major vascular (3.3% vs 2.5%, P = 1.0), bleeding complications (5.0% vs 7.4%, P = 0.57), and stroke (3.3% vs 7.4%, P = 0.20) were not significant between groups. Early Impella placement had lower 6 month (17.7% vs 53.1%, P < 0.001) and 1-year mortality rates (21.5% vs 53.1%, P < 0.001) compared to those in the late group.
Conclusion: For patients with need for an Impella device, regardless of the indication, early implantation is associated with better in-hospital and 1-year outcomes as compared to when the device is implanted late as a bailout.
Keywords: acute coronary syndrome; cardiogenic shock; high risk percutaneous coronary intervention; impella; percutaneous left ventricular assist device.
© 2017, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.