A recent paper, (Dangas et al.
“These economic findings demonstrate that the Impella therapy as compared to the IABP are powerful, in that they show Impella reduced the need for the patient to repeat the PCI procedure, which is a benefit to hospitals, payers, and certainly to the patient from a quality of life perspective.”May 11, 2011 – The Impella percutaneously deployed ventricular assist device showed an overall average hospital charge savings when compared to the standard-of-care intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). The major difference between the two devices is that the IABP works by using the force of each heartbeat to increase blood flow while the Impella 2.5 device functions independently of how forceful your heart beats, pumping up to 2.5 liters of blood per minute.
2014), commented and analyzed the results of a clinical trial called PROTECT II, which compared the use of the IABP with the use of the Impella 2.5 in certain high-risk patients, with similar cardiovascular problems, who underwent PCI. We studied outcomes in patients who had an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with cardiogenic shock (CS) who received Impella or an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). The purpose of this score, they explained, was to balance the two study arms using hierarchical mixed effect models to account for any variations in Impella vs. IABP use across different hospitals while comparing the usage of both to in-hospital death, bleeding, acute kidney injury (AKI), stroke, length-of-stay, and hospitalization costs. A normal saline pressure bag is administered through the red sidearm of the device. 3 4 Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, Massachusetts, USA) is a promising alternative for percutaneous mechanical circulatory support … The same is true in the IMPRESS trial, where 80% of patients had the device, whether Impella or balloon pump, placed after PCI. Moreover, there was a higher incremental hospitalization cost ($15,000), despite a lower length of stay, associated with Impella use.The results of a new study suggest that the use of Impella is associated with worse outcomes compared to an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in cardiogenic shock and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients.“In this large comparative effectiveness study of contemporary, real-world use of Impella vs IABP in cardiogenic shock and high-risk PCI patients, Impella use was associated with higher mortality, bleeding, AKI, and stroke and higher incremental costs,” the researchers wrote in their conclusion. The economic analyses is based on data from the PROTECT II study, which compares Impella to IABP hemodynamic support.“The PROTECT II data continues to be clinically relevant, particularly at the 90-day mark,” O’Neill said. Key Points.