Prophylactic Impella CP versus VA-ECMO in Patients Undergoing Complex High-Risk Indicated PCI

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of interventional cardiology Pub Date : 2022-11-07 DOI:10.1155/2022/8167011
Deborah M.F. van den Buijs, Adriaan Wilgenhof, Paul Knaapen, Carlo Zivelonghi, Tom Meijers, Paul Vermeersch, Fatih Arslan, Niels Verouden, Alex Nap, Krischan Sjauw, Floris S. van den Brink
{"title":"Prophylactic Impella CP versus VA-ECMO in Patients Undergoing Complex High-Risk Indicated PCI","authors":"Deborah M.F. van den Buijs,&nbsp;Adriaan Wilgenhof,&nbsp;Paul Knaapen,&nbsp;Carlo Zivelonghi,&nbsp;Tom Meijers,&nbsp;Paul Vermeersch,&nbsp;Fatih Arslan,&nbsp;Niels Verouden,&nbsp;Alex Nap,&nbsp;Krischan Sjauw,&nbsp;Floris S. van den Brink","doi":"10.1155/2022/8167011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><i>Objectives</i>. To compare two different forms of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with complex high-risk indicated PCI (CHIP): the Impella CP system and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). <i>Background</i>. To prevent hemodynamic instability in CHIP, various MCS systems are available. However, comparable data on different forms of MCS are not at hand. <i>Methods</i>. In this multicenter observational study, we retrospectively evaluated all CHIP procedures with the support of an Impella CP or VA-ECMO, who were declined surgery by the heart team. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), mortality at discharge, and 30-day mortality were evaluated. <i>Results</i>. A total of 41 patients were included, of which 27 patients were supported with Impella CP and 14 patients with VA-ECMO. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced in both groups. No significant difference in periprocedural hemodynamic instability was observed between both groups (3.7% vs. 14.3%; <i>p</i> = 0.22). The composite outcome of MACE showed no significant difference (30.7% vs. 21.4%; <i>p</i> = 0.59). Bleeding complications were higher in the Impella CP group, but showed no significant difference (22.2% vs. 7.1%; <i>p</i> = 0.22) and occurred more at the non-Impella access site. In-hospital mortality was 7.4% in the Impella CP group versus 14.3% in the VA-ECMO group and showed no significant difference (<i>p</i> = 0.48). 30-Day mortality showed no significant difference (7.4% vs. 21.4%; <i>p</i> = 0.09). <i>Conclusions</i>. In patients with CHIP, there were no significant differences in hemodynamic instability and overall MACE between VA-ECMO or Impella CP device as mechanical circulatory support. Based on this study, the choice of either VA-ECMO or Impella CP does not alter the outcome.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16329,"journal":{"name":"Journal of interventional cardiology","volume":"2022 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9663242/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of interventional cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2022/8167011","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives. To compare two different forms of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with complex high-risk indicated PCI (CHIP): the Impella CP system and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). Background. To prevent hemodynamic instability in CHIP, various MCS systems are available. However, comparable data on different forms of MCS are not at hand. Methods. In this multicenter observational study, we retrospectively evaluated all CHIP procedures with the support of an Impella CP or VA-ECMO, who were declined surgery by the heart team. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), mortality at discharge, and 30-day mortality were evaluated. Results. A total of 41 patients were included, of which 27 patients were supported with Impella CP and 14 patients with VA-ECMO. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced in both groups. No significant difference in periprocedural hemodynamic instability was observed between both groups (3.7% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.22). The composite outcome of MACE showed no significant difference (30.7% vs. 21.4%; p = 0.59). Bleeding complications were higher in the Impella CP group, but showed no significant difference (22.2% vs. 7.1%; p = 0.22) and occurred more at the non-Impella access site. In-hospital mortality was 7.4% in the Impella CP group versus 14.3% in the VA-ECMO group and showed no significant difference (p = 0.48). 30-Day mortality showed no significant difference (7.4% vs. 21.4%; p = 0.09). Conclusions. In patients with CHIP, there were no significant differences in hemodynamic instability and overall MACE between VA-ECMO or Impella CP device as mechanical circulatory support. Based on this study, the choice of either VA-ECMO or Impella CP does not alter the outcome.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预防性Impella CP与VA-ECMO在复杂高危PCI患者中的应用
目的:比较两种不同形式的机械循环支持(MCS)在复杂高危PCI (CHIP)患者中的应用:Impella CP系统和静脉-动脉体外膜氧合(VA-ECMO)。背景:为了防止CHIP的血流动力学不稳定,各种MCS系统都是可用的。然而,目前还没有关于不同形式MCS的可比数据。方法:在这项多中心观察性研究中,我们回顾性评估了所有由Impella CP或VA-ECMO支持的CHIP手术,这些手术被心脏团队拒绝手术。评估主要不良心脏事件(MACE)、出院死亡率和30天死亡率。结果:共纳入41例患者,其中Impella CP支持27例,VA-ECMO支持14例。两组的基线特征平衡良好。两组患者术中血流动力学不稳定性无显著差异(3.7% vs. 14.3%;P = 0.22)。MACE的综合结局无显著性差异(30.7% vs. 21.4%;P = 0.59)。Impella CP组出血并发症发生率较高,但差异无统计学意义(22.2% vs 7.1%;p = 0.22),且在非impella通路部位发生较多。Impella CP组的住院死亡率为7.4%,VA-ECMO组为14.3%,差异无统计学意义(p = 0.48)。30天死亡率无显著差异(7.4% vs. 21.4%;P = 0.09)。结论:在CHIP患者中,作为机械循环支持的VA-ECMO和Impella CP装置在血流动力学不稳定性和总体MACE方面无显著差异。根据本研究,选择VA-ECMO或Impella CP并不会改变结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of interventional cardiology
Journal of interventional cardiology CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
81
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Interventional Cardiology is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that provides a forum for cardiologists determined to stay current in the diagnosis, investigation, and management of patients with cardiovascular disease and its associated complications. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies focusing on new procedures and techniques in all major subject areas in the field, including: Acute coronary syndrome Coronary disease Congenital heart diseases Myocardial infarction Peripheral arterial disease Valvular heart disease Cardiac hemodynamics and physiology Haemostasis and thrombosis
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum to “The “L-Sandwich” Strategy for True Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Randomized Clinical Trial” Complete Revascularization Techniques for Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Angiography- and Coronary Physiology-Guided PCI Predictors for Sedation Failure in Mitral Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair Procedures Single Center Experience With Impella 5.5 for Escalation and De-Escalation of Cardiogenic Shock Patients Epidemiological Trends, Etiology, and Burden Study of Heart Failure in China, 1990–2019
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1