Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock: Uses in the Emergency Setting.

Cardiogenic shock is a lethal condition with significant morbidity, characterized by myocardial insults leading to low cardiac output and ensuing systemic hypoperfusion. While mortality rates remain high, we have improved upon our recognition and definition of cardiogenic shock, now with an emphasis on defining stages of shock to help guide effective treatment strategies with either pharmacologic or mechanical circulatory support. In this review, the authors summarize these stages as well as discuss indications, function, selection, and troubleshooting of the various temporary mechanical circulatory support devices.

The Effects of Exercise on Cardiogenic Shock with an Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump: A Case Report. / Efeitos do Exercício em Choque Cardiogênico e Balão Intra-Aórtico: Um Relato de Caso.

This case report describes the exercise program on a hospitalized 54-year-old male patient with cardiogenic shock waiting for a heart transplant assisted by an intra-aortic balloon pump, a temporary mechanical circulatory support device. The temporary mechanical circulatory support device, an intra-aortic balloon pump, was placed in the left subclavian artery, enabling the exercise protocol. Measurements and values from Swan-Ganz catheter, blood sample, brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), as well as the six-minute walk test (6MWT) and venous oxygen saturation (SvO2) were obtained before and after an exercise protocol. The exercise training protocol involved the use of an unloaded bed cycle ergometer once a day, for a maximum of 30 minutes, to the tolerance limit. No adverse events or events related to the dislocation of the intra-aortic balloon pump were observed during the exercise protocol. The exercise program resulted in higher SvO2 levels, with an increased 6MWT with lower Borg dyspnea scores (312 meters vs. 488 meters and five points vs. three points, respectively). After completing the ten-day exercise protocol, the patient underwent a non-complicated heart transplant surgery and a full recovery in the ICU. This study showed that exercise is a feasible option for patients with cardiogenic shock who are using an intra-aortic balloon pump and that it is well-tolerated with no reported adverse events.

O presente relato de caso descreve o programa de exercícios aplicado a um paciente do sexo masculino, de 54 anos, internado com choque cardiogênico, aguardando transplante cardíaco e assistido por balão intra-aórtico, um dispositivo de suporte circulatório mecânico temporário. O dispositivo de suporte circulatório mecânico temporário, um balão intra-aórtico, foi colocado na artéria subclávia esquerda, possibilitando o protocolo de exercícios. Antes e após um protocolo de exercícios, foram obtidos dados a partir de cateter de Swan-Ganz, amostra de sangue, peptídeo natriurético cerebral (NT-proBNP), proteína C reativa de alta sensibilidade (PCR-as), teste de caminhada de seis minutos (TC6min) e medição da saturação venosa de oxigênio (SvO2). O protocolo de treinamento físico envolveu a utilização de um cicloergômetro adaptado ao leito, sem carga, uma vez ao dia, por no máximo 30 minutos, até o limite da tolerância. Não foram observados eventos adversos tampouco relacionados ao deslocamento do balão intra-aórtico durante o protocolo de exercícios. O programa de exercícios resultou em maior SvO2 com aumento do TC6min e menores escores de dispneia de Borg (312 metros vs. 488 metros e cinco pontos vs. três pontos, respectivamente). Após completar o protocolo de exercícios de dez dias, o paciente foi submetido a uma cirurgia de transplante cardíaco sem complicações e recuperação total na UTI. O presente estudo demonstrou que o exercício é uma opção viável para pacientes com choque cardiogênico em uso de balão intra-aórtico e que é bem tolerado, além de não haver relatos de eventos adversos.

Impact of Age, Gender, and Body Mass Index on Short-Term Outcomes of Patients With Cardiogenic Shock on Mechanical Circulatory Support.

This single-center, observational study assessed the impact of age, gender, and body mass index (BMI) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) on temporary mechanical circulatory support. All adult patients admitted to the Cleveland Clinic main campus Cardiac Intensive Care Unit (CICU) between December 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019, CICU with CS necessitating mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella, or venous arterial-extra corporeal membrane oxygenation were retrospectively analyzed for this study. Baseline characteristics and 30-day outcomes were collected through physician-directed chart review. The impact of age, gender, and BMI on 30-day mortality was assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to analyze the survival difference in specific subsets. A total of 393 patients with CS on temporary MCS were admitted to our CICU during the study period. The median age of our cohort was 63 years (interquartile range 54 to 70 years), median BMI was 28.50 kg/m2 (interquartile range 24.62 to 29.72) and 70% (n = 276) were men. In total, 22 patients >80 years had received MCS compared with 372 patients <80 years. Patients >80 years on MCS had significantly higher 30-day mortality compared with those <80 years (81.8% vs 49.3%, p = 0.006). Upon stratifying patients by BMI, 161 (41%) patients were found to have BMI ≥30 kg/m2 whereas 232 (59%) patients had BMI <30 kg/m2. Comparison of 30-day mortality revealed that patients with BMI ≥30 did significantly worse than patients with BMI <30 (59.6% vs 45.3%, p = 0.007). There was no difference in 30-day mortality between men and women. On multivariable logistic regression, both age and BMI had a positive linear relation with adjusted 30-day mortality whereas gender did not have a major effect. Advanced age and higher BMI are independently associated with worse outcomes in patients with CS on MCS. Utilizing a strict selection criterion for patients in CS is pertinent to derive the maximum benefit from advanced mechanical support.

Microaxial mechanical circulatory support after orthotopic heart transplantation.

AIM: Use of microaxial mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has been reported for severe graft rejection or dysfunction after heart transplantation (HTx). We aimed to assess utilization patterns of microaxial MCS after HTx in adolescents (ages 18 and younger) and adults (ages 19 and older). METHODS: Electronic search was performed to identify all relevant studies on post-HTx use of microaxial support in adults and adolescents. A total of 18 studies were selected and patient-level data were extracted for statistical analysis. RESULTS: All patients (n=23), including adults (n=15) and adolescents (n=8), underwent Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) microaxial MCS after HTx. Median age was 36 [IQR 18-56] years (Adults, 52 [37-59]; adolescents, 16 [15-17]). Primary right ventricular graft dysfunction was an indication exclusively seen in the adults 40% (6/15), while acute graft rejection was present in 46.7% (7/15) of adults. Median time after transplant was 9 [0-32] months (Adults, 4 [0-32]; adolescents, 11 [4.5, 45]). Duration of Impella support was comparable between adults and adolescents (5 [2.5-8] vs 6 [5-8] days, p = 0.38). Overall improvement was observed both in median LV ejection fraction (23.5% [11.3-28] to 42% [37.8-47.3], p < 0.01) and cardiac index (1.8 [1.2-2.6] to 3 [2.5-3.1], p < 0.01). Retransplantation was required in four adolescents (50%, 4/8). Survival to discharge was achieved by 60.0% (9/15) of adults and 87.5% (7/8) of adolescents respectively (p = 0.37). CONCLUSION: Indications for microaxial MCS appear to vary between adult and adolescent patients. Overall improvement in LVEF and cardiac index was observed, however, with suboptimal survival to discharge.

Mechanical Circulatory Support for High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review will focus on the indications of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and then analyze in detail all MCS devices available to the operator, evaluating their mechanisms of action, pros and cons, contraindications, and clinical data supporting their use. RECENT FINDINGS: Over the last decade, the interventional cardiology arena has witnessed an increase in the complexity profile of the patients and lesions treated in the catheterization laboratory. Patients with significant comorbidity burden, left ventricular dysfunction, impaired hemodynamics, and/or complex coronary anatomy often cannot tolerate extensive percutaneous revascularization. Therefore, a variety of MCS devices have been developed and adopted for high-risk PCI. Despite the variety of MCS available to date, a detailed characterization of the patient requiring MCS is still lacking. A precise selection of patients who can benefit from MCS support during high-risk PCI and the choice of the most appropriate MCS device in each case are imperative to provide extensive revascularization and improve patient outcomes. Several new devices are being tested in early feasibility studies and randomized clinical trials and the experience gained in this context will allow us to provide precise answers to these questions in the coming years.

Single arterial access technique for simultaneous dual mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support is a treatment of choice for patients in severe cardiogenic shock. Combining veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (ECLS) with devices that enable left ventricular unloading emerges as a promising strategy to diminish detrimental effect of elevated left ventricular afterload and to improve survival. However, the need to establish multiple arterial access sites remains a major drawback of this approach due to a significant rate of vascular complications. We describe herein a case of a single arterial access for ECLS and intra-aortic balloon pump using axillary artery that may provide a simple, modular and flexible approach for escalation or de-escalation of mechanical circulatory support.

Prognostic performance of the IABP-SHOCK II Risk Score among cardiogenic shock subtypes in the critical care cardiology trials network registry.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification has potential to guide triage and decision-making in cardiogenic shock (CS). We assessed the prognostic performance of the IABP-SHOCK II score, derived in Europe for acute myocardial infarct-related CS (AMI-CS), in a contemporary North American cohort, including different CS phenotypes. METHODS: The critical care cardiology trials network (CCCTN) coordinated by the TIMI study group is a multicenter network of cardiac intensive care units (CICU). Participating centers annually contribute ≥2 months of consecutive medical CICU admissions. The IABP-SHOCK II risk score includes age > 73 years, prior stroke, admission glucose > 191 mg/dl, creatinine > 1.5 mg/dl, lactate > 5 mmol/l, and post-PCI TIMI flow grade < 3. We assessed the risk score across various CS etiologies. RESULTS: Of 17,852 medical CICU admissions 5,340 patients across 35 sites were admitted with CS. In patients with AMI-CS (n = 912), the IABP-SHOCK II score predicted a >3-fold gradient in in-hospital mortality (low risk = 26.5%, intermediate risk = 52.2%, high risk = 77.5%, P < .0001; c-statistic = 0.67; Hosmer-Lemeshow P = .79). The score showed a similar gradient of in-hospital mortality in patients with non-AMI-related CS (n = 2,517, P < .0001) and mixed shock (n = 923, P < .001), as well as in left ventricular (<0.0001), right ventricular (P = .0163) or biventricular (<0.0001) CS. The correlation between the IABP-SHOCK II score and SOFA was moderate (r2 = 0.17) and the IABP-SHOCK II score revealed a significant risk gradient within each SCAI stage. CONCLUSIONS: In an unselected international multicenter registry of patients admitted with CS, the IABP- SHOCK II score only moderately predicted in-hospital mortality in a broad population of CS regardless of etiology or irrespective of right, left, or bi-ventricular involvement.

Impella Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Treated With Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used for patients with cardiogenic shock. Although Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is frequently used for left ventricular unloading (LVU) during VA-ECMO treatment, there are limited data on comparative outcomes. We compared outcomes of Impella and IABP for LVU during VA-ECMO. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database between 2016 and 2020, we analyzed outcomes in 3 groups of patients with cardiogenic shock requiring VA-ECMO based on LVU strategies: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) only, ECMO with IABP, and ECMO with Impella. Of 15 980 patients on VA-ECMO, IABP and Impella were used in 19.4% and 16.4%, respectively. The proportion of patients receiving Impella significantly increased from 2016 to 2020 (6.5% versus 25.8%; P-trend<0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher with ECMO with Impella (54.8%) compared with ECMO only (50.4%) and ECMO with IABP (48.4%). After adjustment, ECMO with IABP versus ECMO only was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.83; P=0.02). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO only had similar in-hospital mortality (aOR, 1.09; P=0.695) but was associated with more bleeding (aOR, 1.21; P=0.007) and more acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.42; P<0.001). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO with IABP was associated with greater risk of acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.49; P=0.002), higher in-hospital mortality (aOR, 1.32; P=0.001), and higher 40-day mortality (hazard ratio, 1.25; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cardiogenic shock on VA-ECMO, LVU with Impella, particularly with 2.5/CP, was not associated with improved survival at 40 days but was associated with increased adverse events compared with IABP. More data are needed to assess Impella platform-specific comparative outcomes of LVU.

Use of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Primary Graft Dysfunction After Cardiac Transplantation: Results of an A Priori Ventless Approach.

Primary graft dysfunction (PGD) after cardiac transplantation is a devastating complication with increasing frequency lately in the setting of donation after circulatory death (DCD). Severe PGD is commonly treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) using central or peripheral cannulation. We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of PGD after cardiac transplantation requiring ECMO support at our center from 2015 to 2020, focused on our now preferential approach using peripheral cannulation without a priori venting. During the study period, 255 patients underwent heart transplantation at our center and 26 (10.2%) of them required ECMO for PGD. Of 24 patients cannulated peripherally 19 (79%) were alive at 30 days and 17 (71%) 1 year after transplant; two additional patients underwent central ECMO cannulation due to unfavorable size of femoral vessels and concern for limb ischemia. Successful decannulation with full graft function recovery occurred in 22 of 24 (92%) patients cannulated peripherally. Six of them had an indwelling intra-aortic balloon pump placed before the transplantation. None of the other 18 patients received a ventricular vent. In conclusion, the use of an a priori peripheral and ventless ECMO approach in patients with PGD after heart transplant is an effective strategy associated with high rates of graft recovery and survival.

Mechanical circulatory support versus vasopressors alone in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have compared Impella use to intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Our objective was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI who received Impella (percutaneous left ventricular assist device) without vasopressors, IABP without vasopressors, and vasopressors without mechanical circulatory support (MCS). METHODS: We queried the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) using ICD-10 codes (2015-2018) to identify patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI. We created three propensity-matched cohorts to examine clinical outcomes in patients receiving Impella versus IABP, Impella versus vasopressors without MCS, and IABP versus vasopressors without MCS. RESULTS: Among 17,762 patients, Impella use was associated with significantly higher in-hospital major bleeding (31.4% vs. 13.6%; p < 0.001) and hospital charges (p < 0.001) compared to IABP use, with no benefit in mortality (34.1% vs. 26.9%; p = 0.06). Impella use was associated with significantly higher mortality (42.3% vs. 35.7%; p = 0.02), major bleeding (33.9% vs. 22.7%; p = 0.001), and hospital charges (p < 0.001), when compared to the use of vasopressors without MCS. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between IABP use and the use of vasopressor without MCS. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of retrospective data of patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI, Impella use was associated with higher mortality, major bleeding, and in-hospital charges when compared to vasopressor therapy without MCS. When compared to IABP use, Impella was associated with no mortality benefit, along with higher major bleeding events and in-hospital charges. A vasopressor-only strategy suggested no difference in clinical outcomes when compared to IABP. This study uses the NIS for the first time to highlight outcomes in AMI-CS patients undergoing PCI when treated with vasopressor support without MCS, compared to Impella and IABP use.

Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Sepsis-Associated Cardiogenic Shock With and Without Acute Myocardial Infarction.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the current use and outcomes of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with sepsis-associated cardiogenic shocks with and without acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The National Inpatient Sample database from 2017 to 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock with and without AMI. INTERVENTIONS: Temporary MCSs, including intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Multivariate logistic regression analyses adjusting for patient characteristics, organ failures, and socioeconomic status. Although the uses of IABP and pLVAD were associated with significantly lower odds of in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock (IABP: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.73, p < .001; pLVAD: aOR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45-0.98, p = .037), ECMO was not (aOR 1.51, 95% CI 0.93-2.45, p = 0.096). In the subgroup with AMI, temporary MCSs were not associated with significantly lower or higher odds of in-hospital mortality. In the subgroup without AMI, IABP was associated with significantly lower odds of in-hospital mortality (aOR 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.65, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although temporary MCS is deemed to be a feasible option in sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock, the selection of the right patients whose shock is driven mainly by cardiogenic shock rather than septic shock, as represented by low cardiac output and high systemic vascular resistance, plays a critical role in the feasibility of this approach in the absence of clinical trials.

Efeitos do exercício em choque cardiogênico e balão intra-aórtico: um relato de caso / The Effects of Exercise on Cardiogenic Shock with an Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump: A Case Report

O presente relato de caso descreve o programa de exercícios aplicado a um paciente do sexo masculino, de 54 anos, internado com choque cardiogênico, aguardando transplante cardíaco e assistido por balão intra-aórtico, um dispositivo de suporte circulatório mecânico temporário. O dispositivo de suporte circulatório mecânico temporário, um balão intra-aórtico, foi colocado na artéria subclávia esquerda, possibilitando o protocolo de exercícios. Antes e após um protocolo de exercícios, foram obtidos dados a partir de cateter de Swan-Ganz, amostra de sangue, peptídeo natriurético cerebral (NT-proBNP), proteína C reativa de alta sensibilidade (PCR-as), teste de caminhada de seis minutos (TC6min) e medição da saturação venosa de oxigênio (SvO2). O protocolo de treinamento físico envolveu a utilização de um cicloergômetro adaptado ao leito, sem carga, uma vez ao dia, por no máximo 30 minutos, até o limite da tolerância. Não foram observados eventos adversos tampouco relacionados ao deslocamento do balão intra-aórtico durante o protocolo de exercícios. O programa de exercícios resultou em maior SvO2 com aumento do TC6min e menores escores de dispneia de Borg (312 metros vs. 488 metros e cinco pontos vs. três pontos, respectivamente). Após completar o protocolo de exercícios de dez dias, o paciente foi submetido a uma cirurgia de transplante cardíaco sem complicações e recuperação total na UTI. O presente estudo demonstrou que o exercício é uma opção viável para pacientes com choque cardiogênico em uso de balão intra-aórtico e que é bem tolerado, além de não haver relatos de eventos adversos.

Changing Trends in Mechanical Circulatory Support Use and Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Acute Coronary Syndrome Complicated With Cardiogenic Shock: Insights From a Nationwide Registry in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Temporal trends in the management of acute coronary syndrome complicated with cardiogenic shock after the revision of guideline recommendations for intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use and the approval of the Impella require further investigation, because their impact remains uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the Japanese Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (J-PCI) registry database from 2019 to 2021, we identified 12 171 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome complicated with cardiogenic shock under mechanical circulatory support. The patients were stratified into 3 groups: (1) IABP alone, (2) Impella, and (3) venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO); the VA-ECMO group was further stratified into (3a) VA-ECMO alone, (3b) VA-ECMO in combination with IABP, and (3c) VA-ECMO in combination with Impella. The quarterly prevalence and outcomes were reported. The use of IABP alone decreased significantly from 63.5% in the first quarter of 2019 to 58.3% in the fourth quarter of 2021 (P for trend=0.01). Among 4245 patients requiring VA-ECMO, the use of VA-ECMO in combination with IABP decreased significantly from 78.7% to 67.3%, whereas the use of VA-ECMO in combination with Impella increased significantly from 4.2% to 17.0% (P for trend <0.001 for both). After adjusting for the confounders, the risk difference in the fourth quarter of 2021 relative to the first quarter of 2019 for in-hospital mortality was not significant (adjusted odds ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.69-1.01]). CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed substantial changes in the use of different mechanical circulatory support modalities in acute coronary syndrome complicated with cardiogenic shock, but they did not significantly improve the outcomes.

Research progress of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: A review.

The mortality rate of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated with cardiogenic shock is very high, and in recent years, intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation has been used more and more. It plays a very important role in improving left ventricular ejection, increasing coronary artery perfusion pressure and reducing myocardial oxygen consumption. This article reviews the development of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock in recent years.

Stroke and Mechanical Circulatory Support in Adults.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Short-term and durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices represent life-saving interventions for patients with cardiogenic shock and end-stage heart failure. This review will cover the epidemiology, risk factors, and treatment of stroke in this patient population. RECENT FINDINGS: Short-term devices such as intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella, TandemHeart, and Venoatrial Extracorporal Membrane Oxygenation, as well as durable continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), improve cardiac output and blood flow to the vital organs. However, MCS use is associated with high rates of complications, including ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes which carry a high risk for death and disability. Improvements in MCS technology have reduced but not eliminated the risk of stroke. Mitigation strategies focus on careful management of anti-thrombotic therapies. While data on therapeutic options for stroke are limited, several case series reported favorable outcomes with thrombectomy for ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusions, as well as with reversal of anticoagulation for those with hemorrhagic stroke. Stroke in patients treated with MCS is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Preventive strategies are targeted based on the specific form of MCS. Improvements in the design of the newest generation device have reduced the risk of ischemic stroke, though hemorrhagic stroke remains a serious complication.

Impella for the Management of Ventricular Septal Defect Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction: A European Multicenter Registry.

Ventricular septal defect (VSD) is a rare but severe complication of myocardial infarction (MI). Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) can be used as a bridge to VSD closure, heart transplantation, or ventricular assist device. We describe the use of Impella device in this context based on a multicenter European retrospective registry (17 centers responded). Twenty-eight post-MI VSD patients were included (Impella device were 2.5 for 1 patient, CP for 20, 5.0 for 5, and unknown for 2). All patients were in cardiogenic shock with multiple organ failure (SAPS II 41 [interquantile range {IQR} = 27-53], lactate 4.0 ± 3.5 mmol/L) and catecholamine support (dobutamine 55% and norepinephrine 96%). Additional temporary MCS was used in 14 patients (50%), mainly extracorporeal life support (ECLS) (n = 9, 32%). Severe bleedings were frequent (50%). In-hospital and 1 year mortalities were 75%. Ventricular septal defect management was surgical for 36% of patients, percutaneous for 21%, and conservative for 43%. Only surgically managed patients survived (70% in-hospital survival). Type and combination of temporary MCS used were not associated with mortality (Impella alone or in combination with intra-aortic balloon pump [IABP] or ECLS, p = 0.84). Impella use in patients with post-MI VSD is feasible but larger prospective registries are necessary to further elucidate potential benefits of left ventricular unloading in this setting.