# Percutane mechanische circulatoire ondersteuning versus IABP bij cardiogene shock na MI

*geplaatst 2017-01-24 · Algemeen · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.022 · https://hartvaat.nl/2017/01/24/percutane-mechanische-circulatoire-ondersteuning-versus-iabp-bij-cardiogene-shoc/*

Studie die percutane mechanische ondersteuningsdevices (Impella, TandemHeart) vergeleek met intra-aortale ballonpomp (IABP) bij cardiogene shock na acuut myocardinfarct.

## English: Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction.

This study compared percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices (Impella, TandemHeart) with intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute MI, evaluating whether more powerful hemodynamic support improves survival in this setting.

## Abstract (original, from the publication)

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in treatment, mortality in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains high. Short-term mechanical circulatory support devices acutely improve hemodynamic conditions. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether a new percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) device (Impella CP, Abiomed, Danvers, Massachusetts) decreases 30-day mortality when compared with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients with severe shock complicating AMI. METHODS: In a randomized, prospective, open-label, multicenter trial, 48 patients with severe CS complicating AMI were assigned to pMCS (n = 24) or IABP (n = 24). Severe CS was defined as systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg or the need for inotropic or vasoactive medication and the requirement for mechanical ventilation. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: At 30 days, mortality in patients treated with either IABP or pMCS was similar (50% and 46%, respectively; hazard ratio with pMCS: 0.96; 95% confidence interval: 0.42 to 2.18; p = 0.92). At 6 months, mortality rates for both pMCS and IABP were 50% (hazard ratio: 1.04; 95% confidence interval: 0.47 to 2.32; p = 0.923). CONCLUSIONS: In this explorative randomized controlled trial involving mechanically ventilated patients with CS after AMI, routine treatment with pMCS was not associated with reduced 30-day mortality compared with IABP. (IMPRESS in Severe Shock; NTR3450).

Auteurs: Dagmar M Ouweneel, Erlend Eriksen, Krischan D Sjauw, Ivo M van Dongen, Alexander Hirsch, Erik J S Packer, M Marije Vis, Joanna J Wykrzykowska, Karel T Koch, Jan Baan, Robbert J de Winter, Jan J Piek, Wim K Lagrand, Bas A J M de Mol, Jan G P Tijssen, José P S Henriques

---
Bron: Journal of the American College of Cardiology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.022. Bijgewerkt 2026-07-03T13:25:50Z. Citeer vrij, met bronvermelding en een link naar hartvaat.nl (de url van het record). Samenvattingen zijn redactioneel werk van HartVaat; de oorspronkelijke publicaties blijven van hun uitgevers (doi). Geen medisch advies.