Experience from a randomized controlled trial with Impella 2.5 versus IABP in STEMI patients with cardiogenic pre-shock: Lessons learned from the IMPRESS in STEMI trial

D M Ouweneel; A E Engstrom; K D Sjauw; A Hirsch; J M Hill; B Gockel; V Tuseth; R J van der Schaaf; J P S Henriques

doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.10.063

Experience from a randomized controlled trial with Impella 2.5 versus IABP in STEMI patients with cardiogenic pre-shock: Lessons learned from the IMPRESS in STEMI trial

D M Ouweneel, A E Engstrom, K D Sjauw, A Hirsch, J M Hill, B Gockel, V Tuseth, R J van der Schaaf, J P S Henriques^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/Letter to the editor › Academic › peer-review

74 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To the Editor:
Cardiogenic shock occurs in approximately 6–10% of patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Anterior STEMI patients with high heart rate or low systolic blood pressure may qualify as pre-shock patients and until recently these patients were frequently supported with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). However, routine usage of the IABP patients with anterior STEMI and cardiogenic shock is not associated with clinical benefit and is no longer recommended. Therefore, research is currently directed at potentially more powerful devices for percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. However, evidence from randomized controlled trials is scarce, as this patient population is difficult to identify and study. [...]

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	894-6
Number of pages	3
Journal	International Journal of Cardiology
Volume	202
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.10.063
Publication status	Published - 1 Jan 2016
Externally published	Yes

Access to Document

10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.10.063

Cite this

Ouweneel, D. M., Engstrom, A. E., Sjauw, K. D., Hirsch, A., Hill, J. M., Gockel, B., Tuseth, V., van der Schaaf, R. J., & Henriques, J. P. S. (2016). Experience from a randomized controlled trial with Impella 2.5 versus IABP in STEMI patients with cardiogenic pre-shock: Lessons learned from the IMPRESS in STEMI trial. International Journal of Cardiology, 202, 894-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.10.063

@article{b82c69f270f34956abe624561960072f,

title = "Experience from a randomized controlled trial with Impella 2.5 versus IABP in STEMI patients with cardiogenic pre-shock: Lessons learned from the IMPRESS in STEMI trial",

abstract = "To the Editor: Cardiogenic shock occurs in approximately 6–10\% of patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Anterior STEMI patients with high heart rate or low systolic blood pressure may qualify as pre-shock patients and until recently these patients were frequently supported with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). However, routine usage of the IABP patients with anterior STEMI and cardiogenic shock is not associated with clinical benefit and is no longer recommended. Therefore, research is currently directed at potentially more powerful devices for percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. However, evidence from randomized controlled trials is scarce, as this patient population is difficult to identify and study. [...] ",

author = "Ouweneel, \{D M\} and Engstrom, \{A E\} and Sjauw, \{K D\} and A Hirsch and Hill, \{J M\} and B Gockel and V Tuseth and \{van der Schaaf\}, \{R J\} and Henriques, \{J P S\}",

year = "2016",

month = jan,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.10.063",

language = "English",

volume = "202",

pages = "894--6",

journal = "International Journal of Cardiology",

issn = "0167-5273",

publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

Ouweneel, DM, Engstrom, AE, Sjauw, KD, Hirsch, A, Hill, JM, Gockel, B, Tuseth, V, van der Schaaf, RJ & Henriques, JPS 2016, 'Experience from a randomized controlled trial with Impella 2.5 versus IABP in STEMI patients with cardiogenic pre-shock: Lessons learned from the IMPRESS in STEMI trial', International Journal of Cardiology, vol. 202, pp. 894-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.10.063

Experience from a randomized controlled trial with Impella 2.5 versus IABP in STEMI patients with cardiogenic pre-shock: Lessons learned from the IMPRESS in STEMI trial. / Ouweneel, D M; Engstrom, A E; Sjauw, K D et al.
In: International Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 202, 01.01.2016, p. 894-6.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/Letter to the editor › Academic › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Experience from a randomized controlled trial with Impella 2.5 versus IABP in STEMI patients with cardiogenic pre-shock

T2 - Lessons learned from the IMPRESS in STEMI trial

AU - Ouweneel, D M

AU - Engstrom, A E

AU - Sjauw, K D

AU - Hirsch, A

AU - Hill, J M

AU - Gockel, B

AU - Tuseth, V

AU - van der Schaaf, R J

AU - Henriques, J P S

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - To the Editor: Cardiogenic shock occurs in approximately 6–10% of patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Anterior STEMI patients with high heart rate or low systolic blood pressure may qualify as pre-shock patients and until recently these patients were frequently supported with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). However, routine usage of the IABP patients with anterior STEMI and cardiogenic shock is not associated with clinical benefit and is no longer recommended. Therefore, research is currently directed at potentially more powerful devices for percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. However, evidence from randomized controlled trials is scarce, as this patient population is difficult to identify and study. [...]

AB - To the Editor: Cardiogenic shock occurs in approximately 6–10% of patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Anterior STEMI patients with high heart rate or low systolic blood pressure may qualify as pre-shock patients and until recently these patients were frequently supported with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). However, routine usage of the IABP patients with anterior STEMI and cardiogenic shock is not associated with clinical benefit and is no longer recommended. Therefore, research is currently directed at potentially more powerful devices for percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. However, evidence from randomized controlled trials is scarce, as this patient population is difficult to identify and study. [...]

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.10.063

DO - 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.10.063

M3 - Comment/Letter to the editor

C2 - 26476989

SN - 0167-5273

VL - 202

SP - 894

EP - 896

JO - International Journal of Cardiology

JF - International Journal of Cardiology

ER -

Experience from a randomized controlled trial with Impella 2.5 versus IABP in STEMI patients with cardiogenic pre-shock: Lessons learned from the IMPRESS in STEMI trial

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this