Timing Of Impella Implantation And Outcomes In Cardiogenic Shock Or High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization

Objective To evaluate the role of the microaxial percutaneous mechanical circulatory support device (Impella (R) pump) implantation pre-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus during/after PCI in cardiogenic shock (CS) and high-risk PCI populations.Background A better understanding of the safety and effectiveness of the Impella and the role of timing of this support initiation in specific clinical settings is of utmost clinical relevance.Methods A total of 365 patients treated with Impella 2.5/CP in the 17 centers of the IMP-IT Registry were included. Through propensity-score weighting (PSW) analysis, 1-year clinical outcomes were assessed separately in CS and HR-PCI patients, stratified by timing of Impella support.Results Pre-procedural insertion was associated with an improvement in 1-year survival in patients with CS due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treated with PCI (p = .04 before PSW, p = .009 after PSW) and HR-PCI (p < .01 both before and after PSW). Among patients undergoing HR-PCI, early Impella support was also associated with a lower rate of the composite of mortality, re-hospitalization for heart failure, and need for left-ventricular assist device/heart transplantation at 1-year (p = .04 before PSW, p = .01 after PSW). Furthermore, Impella use during/after PCI was associated with an increased in-hospital life-threatening and severe bleeding among patients with AMI-CS receiving PCI (7 vs. 16%, p = .1) and HR-PCI (1 vs. 9%, p = .02).Conclusions Our findings suggested a survival benefit and reduced rates of major bleeding when a pre-PCI Impella implantation instead of during-after procedure was used in the setting of HR-PCI and AMI-CS.