Outcomes of Impella-supported high-risk nonemergent percutaneous coronary intervention in a large single-center registry.
CHIP
Impella
high-risk PCI
mechanical circulatory support
protected PCI
Journal
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
ISSN: 1522-726X
Titre abrégé: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 01 2021
01 01 2021
Historique:
received:
03
02
2020
revised:
27
03
2020
accepted:
12
04
2020
pubmed:
26
4
2020
medline:
25
9
2021
entrez:
26
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We aimed to evaluate the early and one-year outcomes of Impella-supported high-risk nonemergent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The evidence for the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in high-risk nonemergent PCI is limited and nonconclusive. We performed a single-center retrospective study including all patients who underwent high-risk nonemergent PCI supported by Impella 2.5/CP at our institution between January 2009 and June 2018. This patient population was propensity score matched with subjects undergoing PCI with no MCS. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE: all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], and target lesion revascularization) at one-year follow-up. Two-hundred fifty patients undergoing Impella-supported nonemergent PCI were matched to 250 controls. The two groups were well balanced in terms of clinical and angiographic characteristics. Left main PCI was performed more frequently among Impella-supported patients (26% vs. 11%, p < .001), who also had numerically higher prevalence of rotational atherectomy use (44% vs. 37%, p = .10) and a higher number of vessels treated (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 1.3 ± 0.6, p < .001), compared with controls. Impella-supported patients suffered a higher incidence of periprocedural MI (14.0% vs. 6.4%, p = .005), major bleeding (6.8% vs. 2.8%, p = .04), and need for blood transfusions (11.2% vs. 4.8%, p = .008). However, at one-year follow-up there were no differences in the rates of MACE (31.2% vs. 27.4%, p = .78) or any of its individual components between Impella-supported patients and controls. Although Impella-supported patients suffer a higher incidence of periprocedural adverse events (partially linked to more aggressive PCI), the incidence of one-year MACE was similar between the Impella and control group.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to evaluate the early and one-year outcomes of Impella-supported high-risk nonemergent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
BACKGROUND
The evidence for the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in high-risk nonemergent PCI is limited and nonconclusive.
METHODS
We performed a single-center retrospective study including all patients who underwent high-risk nonemergent PCI supported by Impella 2.5/CP at our institution between January 2009 and June 2018. This patient population was propensity score matched with subjects undergoing PCI with no MCS. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE: all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], and target lesion revascularization) at one-year follow-up.
RESULTS
Two-hundred fifty patients undergoing Impella-supported nonemergent PCI were matched to 250 controls. The two groups were well balanced in terms of clinical and angiographic characteristics. Left main PCI was performed more frequently among Impella-supported patients (26% vs. 11%, p < .001), who also had numerically higher prevalence of rotational atherectomy use (44% vs. 37%, p = .10) and a higher number of vessels treated (1.8 ± 0.8 vs. 1.3 ± 0.6, p < .001), compared with controls. Impella-supported patients suffered a higher incidence of periprocedural MI (14.0% vs. 6.4%, p = .005), major bleeding (6.8% vs. 2.8%, p = .04), and need for blood transfusions (11.2% vs. 4.8%, p = .008). However, at one-year follow-up there were no differences in the rates of MACE (31.2% vs. 27.4%, p = .78) or any of its individual components between Impella-supported patients and controls.
CONCLUSIONS
Although Impella-supported patients suffer a higher incidence of periprocedural adverse events (partially linked to more aggressive PCI), the incidence of one-year MACE was similar between the Impella and control group.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
E26-E33Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
Kirtane AJ, Doshi D, Leon MB, et al. Treatment of higher-risk patients with an indication for revascularization. Circulation. 2016;134:422-431.
Waldo SW, Secemsky EA, O'Brien C, et al. Surgical ineligibility and mortality among patients with unprotected left main or multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 2014;130:2295-2301.
Thiele H, Jobs A, Ouweneel DM, et al. Percutaneous short-term active mechanical support devices in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur Heart J. 2018;38:3523-3531.
O'Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, et al. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study. Circulation. 2012;126:1717-1727.
Sjauw KD, Konorza T, Erbel R, et al. Supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device: The Europella registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:2430-2434.
Maini B, Naidu SS, Mulukutla S, et al. Real-world use of the Impella 2.5 circulatory support system in complex high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the USpella registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;80:717-725.
Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Simoons ML, Chaitman BR, White HD. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2012;126:2020-2035.
Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med. 2015;34:3661-3679.
Funk MJ, Westreich D, Wiesen C, Stürmer T, Brookhart MA, Davidian M. Doubly robust estimation of causal effects. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173:761-767.
Azzalini L, Giustino G, Ojeda S, et al. Procedural and long-term outcomes of bioresorbable scaffolds versus drug-eluting stents in chronic total occlusions: the BONITO registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:e004284.
Alqarqaz M, Basir M, Alaswad K, O'Neill WW. Effects of Impella on coronary perfusion in patients with critical coronary artery stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:e005870.
Ouweneel DM, Eriksen E, Sjauw KD, et al. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support versus intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:278-287.
Schrage B, Ibrahim K, Loehn T, et al. Impella support for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: matched-pair IABP-SHOCK II trial 30-day mortality analysis. Circulation. 2019;139:1249-1258.
Becher T, Baumann S, Eder F, et al. 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. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2019;8:360-368.
Perera D, Stables R, Thomas M, et al. Elective intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2010;304:867-874.
Perera D, Stables R, Clayton T, et al. Long-term mortality data from the balloon pump-assisted coronary intervention study (BCIS-1): a randomized, controlled trial of elective balloon counterpulsation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 2013;127:207-212.
Chen Z-W, Yang H-B, Chen Y-H, Ma J-Y, Qian J-Y, Ge J-B. Impact of multi-vessel therapy to the risk of periprocedural myocardial injury after elective coronary intervention: exploratory study. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2017;17:69.
Zeitouni M, Silvain J, Guedeney P, et al. Periprocedural myocardial infarction and injury in elective coronary stenting. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:1100-1109.
Koskinas K, Ndrepepa G, Räber L, et al. Prognostic impact of periprocedural myocardial infarction in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary interventions. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:e006752.
Kawamoto H, Latib A, Ruparelia N, et al. In-hospital and midterm clinical outcomes of rotational atherectomy followed by stent implantation: the ROTATE multicentre registry. EuroIntervention. 2016;12:1448-1456.
Sakakura K, Funayama H, Taniguchi Y, et al. The incidence of slow flow after rotational atherectomy of calcified coronary arteries: a randomized study of low speed versus high speed. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 2017;89:832-840.
Kapur NK, Alkhouli MA, DeMartini TJ, et al. Unloading the left ventricle before reperfusion in patients with anterior ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: a pilot study using the Impella CP. Circulation. 2019;139:337-346.
Dangas GD, Kini AS, Sharma SK, et al. Impact of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump on prognostically important clinical outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (from the PROTECT II randomized trial). Am J Cardiol. 2014;113:222-228.