Mechanical Support in Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: What Have We Learned from Trials?

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is the most lethal complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), with a 30-day mortality of approximately 40–50% despite early revascularization. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices, including the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), microaxial flow pumps (MAFP) and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), are used as adjunctive therapy in refractory shock, but evidence of a survival benefit is limited and often conflicting. The IABP-SHOCK II trial found no 30-day mortality reduction with IABP, supporting a Class III (no benefit) recommendation, whereas the DanGer Shock trial reported a 12.7% absolute mortality reduction at 180 days with the MAFP Impella CP in highly selected patients. In contrast, the ECLS-SHOCK and ECMO-CS trials showed no improvement in survival with early VA-ECMO and noted high complication rates. Real-world data reveal significant disparities between trial populations and clinical practice, highlighting limitations of current evidence, since many AMI-CS patients are older, in more advanced shock or have multiple comorbidities and would not meet typical randomized controlled trial (RCT) inclusion criteria. In clinical practice, in-hospital mortality with IABP or VA-ECMO often exceeds 50–60%. Given the heterogeneity of AMI-CS, rapid identification of appropriate tMCS candidates and personalized therapy are essential. Management guided by individual patient profile, hemodynamic stage and neurological status, supported by multidisciplinary shock teams, may improve timely triage, device selection and outcomes. This review emphasizes the need for individualized, protocol-driven care within structured shock systems to optimize tMCS use in AMI-CS.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2026-06-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15124453
Primary Topic
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Mechanical Support in Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: What Have We Learned from Trials?

Norman Mangner, Cristina Aurigemma, V P Panoulas, Jacob Eifer Møller
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
article

Mechanical Support in Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: What Have We Learned from Trials?

Norman Mangner, Cristina Aurigemma, V P Panoulas, Jacob Eifer Møller
article en

Abstract

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is the most lethal complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), with a 30-day mortality of approximately 40–50% despite early revascularization. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices, including the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), microaxial flow pumps (MAFP) and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), are used as adjunctive therapy in refractory shock, but evidence of a survival benefit is limited and often conflicting. The IABP-SHOCK II trial found no 30-day mortality reduction with IABP, supporting a Class III (no benefit) recommendation, whereas the DanGer Shock trial reported a 12.7% absolute mortality reduction at 180 days with the MAFP Impella CP in highly selected patients. In contrast, the ECLS-SHOCK and ECMO-CS trials showed no improvement in survival with early VA-ECMO and noted high complication rates. Real-world data reveal significant disparities between trial populations and clinical practice, highlighting limitations of current evidence, since many AMI-CS patients are older, in more advanced shock or have multiple comorbidities and would not meet typical randomized controlled trial (RCT) inclusion criteria. In clinical practice, in-hospital mortality with IABP or VA-ECMO often exceeds 50–60%. Given the heterogeneity of AMI-CS, rapid identification of appropriate tMCS candidates and personalized therapy are essential. Management guided by individual patient profile, hemodynamic stage and neurological status, supported by multidisciplinary shock teams, may improve timely triage, device selection and outcomes. This review emphasizes the need for individualized, protocol-driven care within structured shock systems to optimize tMCS use in AMI-CS.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 15(12)
Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic (IT), Copenhagen University Hospital (DK), Harefield Hospital (GB), Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IT), University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus (DE)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.