2. Ole K. Møller-Helgestad 1 In collaboration with CB Poulsen, MD 2 EH Christiansen, MD, PhD 2 JF Lassen, MD, PhD 2 HB Ravn, MD, PhD, DMSc 1 1: Dept. of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Aarhus University Hospital 2: Dept. of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital IMPELLA2.5® VS. IABP IN CARDIOGENIC SHOCK SNOWMASS March 11, 2014 DENMARK Norway Sweden U.K. Finland

3. BACKGROUND Mortality ( %) IMPELLA2.5® VS IABP SNOWMASS March 11, 2014 No improvement for the last 15 years Goldberg R J et al. Circulation. 2009;119:1211-1219 BACKGROUNDCONCLUSIONRESULTSSTUDY DESIGN

4. TREATMENT Anticoagulation Inotropics Vasopressors Revascularisation ? Guidelines European Society of Cardiology American Heart Association BACKGROUNDCONCLUSIONRESULTSSTUDY DESIGN IMPELLA2.5® VS IABP SNOWMASS March 11, 2014

5. STUDY DESIGN LV failure IABP Impella IABP Impella No support IABP+ Impella 15 min 10+60 min LAD Ischemia 45 min 13 Pigs 45 + 30 min Reperfusion 30 min. BACKGROUNDCONCLUSIONRESULTSSTUDY DESIGN IMPELLA2.5® VS IABP SNOWMASS March 11, 2014

6. RESULTS Analysed by one-way ANOVA Renal blood flowCarotid blood flow BACKGROUNDCONCLUSIONRESULTSSTUDY DESIGN IMPELLA2.5® VS IABP SNOWMASS March 11, 2014

7. 0.31 watts RESULTS 0.2W CP = 45% Mortality risk Cardiac Power (CP) = (watt) CO × MAP 451 Analysed by one-way ANOVA BACKGROUNDCONCLUSIONRESULTSSTUDY DESIGN IMPELLA2.5® VS IABP SNOWMASS March 11, 2014

8. CONCLUSION In this study, the Impella2.5® was superior to the IABP when it comes to: Improving blood flow to the brain and kidneys Improving cardiac function Suggests impoved outcome on Impella2.5 support, but RCTs are needed BACKGROUNDCONCLUSIONRESULTSSTUDY DESIGN IMPELLA2.5® VS IABP SNOWMASS March 11, 2014

9. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING IMPELLA2.5® VS IABP SNOWMASS March 11, 2014