Short term outcomes of Impella circulatory support for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Impella
high risk PCI
left ventricle
mechanical support device
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 2022
01 01 2022
Historique:
revised:
24
01
2021
received:
18
09
2020
accepted:
03
05
2021
pubmed:
25
5
2021
medline:
3
2
2022
entrez:
24
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Aim of this study is to evaluate short term safety and efficacy of Impella in high risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI) population. While several studies demonstrated the clinical significance of Impella in HR-PCI, few data exist about its impact on short term outcome. All studies reporting short term outcomes of PCI with any Impella device were included. The primary endpoint was either in-hospital or 30-day mortality, while vascular complications, post-procedural stroke, post-procedural dialysis and bleeding complications were assessed as secondary outcomes. Nine studies with 7448 patients were included. Median age was 69.5 years old (67-73), with a mean ejection fraction of 29.7% (20%-39%) and a Syntax score of 30.2 (25. 5-33, interquartile [IQR]). Impella 2.5 was the most commonly used axial flow pump used to support these PCIs (88.7%). In-hospital death was observed in 5.09% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.69-6.49, I Use of Impella in high risk PCI appears to have an acceptable rate of complication, especially regarding vascular complications and major bleedings.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
Aim of this study is to evaluate short term safety and efficacy of Impella in high risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI) population.
BACKGROUND
While several studies demonstrated the clinical significance of Impella in HR-PCI, few data exist about its impact on short term outcome.
METHODS
All studies reporting short term outcomes of PCI with any Impella device were included. The primary endpoint was either in-hospital or 30-day mortality, while vascular complications, post-procedural stroke, post-procedural dialysis and bleeding complications were assessed as secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
Nine studies with 7448 patients were included. Median age was 69.5 years old (67-73), with a mean ejection fraction of 29.7% (20%-39%) and a Syntax score of 30.2 (25. 5-33, interquartile [IQR]). Impella 2.5 was the most commonly used axial flow pump used to support these PCIs (88.7%). In-hospital death was observed in 5.09% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.69-6.49, I
CONCLUSION
Use of Impella in high risk PCI appears to have an acceptable rate of complication, especially regarding vascular complications and major bleedings.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
27-36Subventions
Organisme : None
Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(2):87-165.
D'Ascenzo F, Iannaccone M, Saint-Hilary G, et al. Impact of design of coronary stents and length of dual antiplatelet therapies on ischaemic and bleeding events: a network meta-analysis of 64 randomized controlled trials and 102 735 patients. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(42):3160-3172.
Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation. 2011;124(23):e574-651.
O'Neill W, 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(14):1717-1727.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
Alasnag M, Gardi DO, Elder M, et al. Use of the Impella 2.5 for prophylactic circulatory support during elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2011;12(5):299-303.
Riley RF, McCabe JM, Kalra S, et al. Impella-assisted chronic Total occlusion percutaneous coronary interventions: a multicenter retrospective analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;92(7):1261-1267.
Alsawad K, Basir MB, Khandelwal A, et al. The role of mechanical circulatory support during percutaneous coronary intervention in patients without severely depressed left ventricular function. Am J Cardiol. 2018;121:703-708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.11.045.
Alraies MC, Kaki A, Kajy M, et al. Sex-related difference in the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients undergoing complex high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: insight from the cVAD registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;96:536-544. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.28509.
Baumann S, Werner N, Al-Rashid F, et al. Six months follow-up of protected high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the microaxial Impella pump: results from the German Impella registry. Coron Artery Dis. 2020;31(3):237-242.
Al-Khadra Y, Alraies MC, Darmoch F, et al. Outcomes of nonemergent percutaneous coronary intervention requiring mechanical circulatory support in patients without cardiogenic shock. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;95(3):503-512.
Chieffo A, Ancona MB, Burzotta F, et al. Observational multicentre registry of patients treated with IMPella mechanical circulatory support device in Italy: the IMP-IT registry. EuroIntervention. 2020;15(15):e1343-e1350.
Azzalini L, Johal GS, Baber U, et al. Outcomes of Impella-supported high-risk nonemergent percutaneous coronary intervention in a large single-center registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;97:E26-E33. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.28931.
Ichou JA, Larivèe N, Eisenberg MJ, et al. The effectiveness and safety of the Impella ventricular assist device for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions: a systematic review. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;91(7):1250-1260.
Remmelink M, Sjauwn KD, Henriques JPS, et al. Effects of mechanical left ventricular unloading by Impella on left ventricular dynamics in high-risk and primary percutaneous coronary intervention patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;75(2):187-194.
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(8):867-874.
Romeo F, Acconcia MC, Sergi D, et al. Lack of intra-aortic balloon pump effectiveness in high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions without cardiogenic shock: a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomised trials and observational studies. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167(5):1783-1793.
Ameloot K, Bastos MB, Daemen J, et al. New-generation mechanical circulatory support during high-risk PCI: a cross-sectional analysis. EuroIntervention. 2019;15(5):427-433.
Amin AP, Spertus JA, Curtis JP, et al. The evolving landscape of Impella use in the United States among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with mechanical circulatory support. Circulation. 2020;141(4):273-284.
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(25):2430-2434.
Briasoulis A, Telila T, Palla M, et al. Meta-analysis of usefulness of percutaneous left ventricular assist devices for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions. Am J Cardiol. 2016;118(3):369-375.