Differences in Escalation/De-Escalation and Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock Types Supported With Impella　― Insights From the J-PVAD Registry ―

BACKGROUND: Timely initiation of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS), with appropriate escalation and de-escalation strategies, is critical in managing cardiogenic shock (CS). However, how tMCS utilization and outcomes differ by CS etiology remains unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using data from the Japan Registry for Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device (J-PVAD), we evaluated the differences in tMCS use and outcomes among 3,678 Impella-supported patients with acute myocardial infarction-related CS (AMI-CS, n=2,418 (65.7%)), de novo heart failure-related CS (de novo HF-CS, n=758 (20.6%)), and acute-on-chronic HF-related CS (acute-on-chronic HF-CS, n=502 (13.7%)). The median shock-to-support time was significantly shorter in AMI-CS (123 min) than in de novo HF-CS (186 min) and acute-on-chronic HF-CS (205 min; P<0.001 for each). De novo HF-CS patients were more likely to receive multiple tMCS (64.2%) devices compared with AMI-CS (51.4%; P<0.001) and acute-on-chronic HF-CS (55.2%; P=0.001). Compared with de novo HF-CS, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for in-hospital death was higher in AMI-CS (OR 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.66; P=0.008) and acute-on-chronic HF-CS (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.25-2.22; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: tMCS timing and utilization differed by CS type. De novo HF-CS was associated with the lowest in-hospital mortality rate.