Reviews
16 April 2025
Vol. 3 No. 1 (2025)
Impella vs intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated with cardiogenic shock: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
2218
Views
885
Downloads
0
HTML
Authors
Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a major cause of mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Mechanical circulatory support devices like Impella and Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) manage AMI-CS, but their comparative effectiveness remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. From the database inception until March 2024, we searched databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing Impella and IABP in AMI-CS patients. Risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes were calculated using a random-effects model. Nine studies involving 18,289 patients were included and the mean age of patients in the Impella group was 64.79 years, and 64.75 years in the IABP group. Short-term mortality showed no significant difference between Impella and IABP (RR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.84-1.52, p=0.42, I²=76%). Impella was associated with higher risks of hemolysis (RR: 9.46, p=0.009), limb ischemia (RR: 3.65, p=0.003), transfusion (RR: 2.03, p< 0.0001), and acute kidney injury (RR: 1.22, p=0.04). Meta-regression indicated that peripheral arterial disease, prior PCI, and left ventricular ejection fraction were significant covariates for short-term mortality. Our meta-analysis found no significant difference in short-term mortality between Impella and IABP in AMI-CS patients. In contrast, Impella is associated with higher risks of hemolysis, limb ischemia, transfusion needs, and acute kidney injury. Peripheral arterial disease, prior PCI, and lower LVEF were significantly associated with short-term mortality, with PAD and prior PCI increasing risk, while higher LVEF demonstrated a protective effect.
Altmetrics
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Citations
1. Tehrani BN, Truesdell AG, Psotka MA, et al. A standardized and comprehensive approach to the management of cardiogenic shock. Heart Fail 2020;8:879–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2020.09.005
2. No authors listed. Effectiveness of intravenous thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell’Infarto Miocardico (GISSI). Lancet 1986;1:397–402.
3. Emanuelsson H, Karlson BW, Herlitz J. Characteristics and prognosis of patients with acute myocardial infarction in relation to occurrence of congestive heart failure. Eur Heart J 1994;15:761–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a060583
4. No authors listed. GISSI-2: A factorial randomised trial of alteplase versus streptokinase and heparin versus no heparin among 12 490 patients with acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1990;336:65–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(90)91589-3
5. Kim Y, Shapero K, Ahn SS, et al. Outcomes of mechanical circulatory support for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2022;99658–63.
6. White JM, Ruygrok PN. Intra-Aortic balloon counterpulsation in contemporary practice–where are we? Hear Lung Circ 2015;24:335-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2014.12.003
7. Grieshaber P, Niemann B, Roth P, Böning A. Prophylactic intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in cardiac surgery: it is time for clear evidence. Crit Care 2014;18:1-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-014-0662-2
8. O’Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:e78–140.
9. Zubarevich A, Arjomandi Rad A, Szczechowicz M, et al. Early experience with the Impella pump: single‐center registry. Artif Organs 2022;46:1689–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.14245
10. Merhige ME, Smalling RW, Cassidy D, et al. Effect of the hemopump left ventricular assist device on regional myocardial perfusion and function. Reduction of ischemia during coronary occlusion. Circulation 1989;80:III158-66.
11. Smalling RW, Cassidy DB, Barrett R, et al. Improved regional myocardial blood flow, left ventricular unloading, and infarct salvage using an axial-flow, transvalvular left ventricular assist device. A comparison with intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation and reperfusion alone in a canine infarction model. Circulation 1992;85:1152–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.85.3.1152
12. Sjauw KD, Remmelink M, Baan J, et al. Left ventricular unloading in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients is safe and feasible and provides acute and sustained left ventricular recovery. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:1044–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.10.050
13. Moustafa A, Khan MS, Saad M, et al. Impella support versus intra-aortic balloon pump in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Revascularization Med 2022;34:25–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2021.01.028
14. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
15. Luo D, Wan X, Liu J, Tong T. Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range, and/or mid-quartile range. Stat Methods Med Res 2018;27:1785–805. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280216669183
16. Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14:1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-135
17. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700
18. Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the quality of non-randomized studies in meta-analysis. Available from: https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
19. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
20. Thiele H, Jobs A, Ouweneel DM, et al. Percutaneous short-term active mechanical support devices in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur Heart J 2017;38:3523–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx363
21. Ouweneel DM, Eriksen E, Sjauw KD, et al. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support versus intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:278–87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.022
22. Karami M, Eriksen E, Ouweneel DM, et al. Long-term 5-year outcome of the randomized IMPRESS in severe shock trial: percutaneous mechanical circulatory support vs. intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. Eur Hear J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2021;10:1009–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjacc/zuab060
23. Levine D, Volk L, Vagaonescu T, et al. Risk of stroke with Impella placement is not associated with access vessel. Innovations 2022;17:25–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15569845211057818
24. Fan Z-G, Gao X-F, Chen L-W, et al. The outcomes of intra-aortic balloon pump usage in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a comprehensive meta-analysis of 33 clinical trials and 18,889 patients. Patient Prefer Adherence 2016;297–312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S101945
25. Thakkar S, Patel HP, Kumar A, et al. Outcomes of Impella compared with intra-aortic balloon pump in ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Am Hear J Plus Cardiol Res Pract 2021;12:100067. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahjo.2021.100067
26. Ali JM, Abu-Omar Y. Complications associated with mechanical circulatory support. Ann Transl Med 2020;8:835. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2020.03.152
27. Pieri M, Sorrentino T, Oppizzi M, et al. The role of different mechanical circulatory support devices and their timing of implantation on myocardial damage and mid‐term recovery in acute myocardial infarction related cardiogenic shock. J Interv Cardiol 2018;31:717–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/joic.12569
28. Boudoulas KD, Pederzolli A, Saini U, et al. Comparison of Impella and intra-aortic balloon pump in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: vascular complications and incidence of bleeding. Acute Card Care 2012;14120–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17482941.2012.741244
29. Neumann F-J, Ott I, Gawaz M, et al. Cardiac release of cytokines and inflammatory responses in acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 1995;92:48–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.92.4.748
30. Davies MG, Hagen P. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Br J Surg 1997;84:920–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800840707
31. Hochman JS. Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: expanding the paradigm. Circulatio. 2003;107:2998–3002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000075927.67673.F2
32. Silvain J, Nguyen LS, Spagnoli V, et al. Contrast-induced acute kidney injury and mortality in ST elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Heart 2018;104:767–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2017-311975
33. O’Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, et al. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study. Circulation 2012;126:1717–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.098194
34. Kummerfeldt CE, Toma A, Badheka AO, et al. Severe hemolytic anemia and acute kidney injury after percutaneous continuous-flow ventricular assistance. Circ Hear Fail 2011;4:e20–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.111.964023
35. Rios SA, Bravo CA, Weinreich M, et al. Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis comparing percutaneous ventricular Assist devices versus intra-aortic balloon pump during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention or cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol 2018;122:1330–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.07.011
36. Upadhyaya VD, Alshami A, Patel I, et al. Outcomes of renal function in cardiogenic shock patients with or without mechanical circulatory support. J Clin Med Res 2021;13:283–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr4449
How to Cite
1.
Ahmed M, Bano S, Asif M, Sidra F, Ram M, Bibi S. Impella vs intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated with cardiogenic shock: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis . Global Cardiol [Internet]. 2025 Apr. 16 [cited 2025 Jun. 15];3(1). Available from: https://www.globalcardiology.info/site/article/view/61
Copyright (c) 2025 the Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
