Comparison of peri and post-procedural complications in patients undergoing revascularisation of coronary artery multivessel disease by coronary artery bypass grafting or protected percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device.


Journal

European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care
ISSN: 2048-8734
Titre abrégé: Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101591369

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2019
Historique:
pubmed: 1 7 2017
medline: 18 12 2019
entrez: 30 6 2017
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

While coronary artery bypass grafting remains the standard treatment of complex multivessel coronary artery disease, the advent of peripheral ventricular assist devices has enhanced the safety of percutaneous coronary intervention. We therefore evaluated the safety in terms of inhospital outcome comparing protected high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device and coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with complex multivessel coronary artery disease. This retrospective study included patients with complex multivessel coronary artery disease (SYNTAX score >22) undergoing either coronary artery bypass grafting before the implementation of a protected percutaneous coronary intervention programme with a peripheral ventricular assist device or protected percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device following the start of the programme. The primary endpoint consisted of inhospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. The combined secondary endpoint included peri and post-procedural adverse events. A total of 54 patients (mean age 70.1±9.9 years, 92.6% men) were enrolled in the study with a mean SYNTAX score of 34.5±9.8. Twenty-six (48.1%) patients underwent protected percutaneous coronary intervention while 28 (51.9%) patients received coronary artery bypass grafting. The major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rate was numerically higher in the coronary artery bypass grafting group (17.9 vs. 7.7%; Patients with complex multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing protected percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device experience similar intrahospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rates when compared to coronary artery bypass grafting. Protected percutaneous coronary intervention represents a safe alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting in terms of inhospital adverse events.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
While coronary artery bypass grafting remains the standard treatment of complex multivessel coronary artery disease, the advent of peripheral ventricular assist devices has enhanced the safety of percutaneous coronary intervention. We therefore evaluated the safety in terms of inhospital outcome comparing protected high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device and coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with complex multivessel coronary artery disease.
METHODS METHODS
This retrospective study included patients with complex multivessel coronary artery disease (SYNTAX score >22) undergoing either coronary artery bypass grafting before the implementation of a protected percutaneous coronary intervention programme with a peripheral ventricular assist device or protected percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device following the start of the programme. The primary endpoint consisted of inhospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. The combined secondary endpoint included peri and post-procedural adverse events.
RESULTS RESULTS
A total of 54 patients (mean age 70.1±9.9 years, 92.6% men) were enrolled in the study with a mean SYNTAX score of 34.5±9.8. Twenty-six (48.1%) patients underwent protected percutaneous coronary intervention while 28 (51.9%) patients received coronary artery bypass grafting. The major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rate was numerically higher in the coronary artery bypass grafting group (17.9 vs. 7.7%;
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Patients with complex multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing protected percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device experience similar intrahospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rates when compared to coronary artery bypass grafting. Protected percutaneous coronary intervention represents a safe alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting in terms of inhospital adverse events.

Identifiants

pubmed: 28660768
doi: 10.1177/2048872617717687
doi:

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article Observational Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

360-368

Auteurs

Tobias Becher (T)

1 First Department of Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim (UMM), Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
2 DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Heidelberg/Mannheim, Germany.

Stefan Baumann (S)

1 First Department of Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim (UMM), Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
2 DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Heidelberg/Mannheim, Germany.

Frederik Eder (F)

1 First Department of Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim (UMM), Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.

Simon Perschka (S)

1 First Department of Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim (UMM), Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.

Dirk Loßnitzer (D)

1 First Department of Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim (UMM), Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
2 DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Heidelberg/Mannheim, Germany.

Christian Fastner (C)

1 First Department of Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim (UMM), Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
2 DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Heidelberg/Mannheim, Germany.

Michael Behnes (M)

1 First Department of Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim (UMM), Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
2 DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Heidelberg/Mannheim, Germany.

Christina Doesch (C)

1 First Department of Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim (UMM), Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
2 DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Heidelberg/Mannheim, Germany.

Martin Borggrefe (M)

1 First Department of Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim (UMM), Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
2 DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Heidelberg/Mannheim, Germany.

Ibrahim Akin (I)

1 First Department of Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim (UMM), Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
2 DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Heidelberg/Mannheim, Germany.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH