Prophylactic Impella CP versus VA-ECMO in Patients Undergoing Complex High-Risk Indicated PCI.
Journal
Journal of interventional cardiology
ISSN: 1540-8183
Titre abrégé: J Interv Cardiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8907826
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
19
07
2022
revised:
20
10
2022
accepted:
31
10
2022
entrez:
30
11
2022
pubmed:
1
12
2022
medline:
2
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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). To prevent hemodynamic instability in CHIP, various MCS systems are available. However, comparable data on different forms of MCS are not at hand. 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. 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%; 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.
Sections du résumé
Objectives
UNASSIGNED
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
UNASSIGNED
To prevent hemodynamic instability in CHIP, various MCS systems are available. However, comparable data on different forms of MCS are not at hand.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
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
UNASSIGNED
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%;
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36447936
doi: 10.1155/2022/8167011
pmc: PMC9663242
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
8167011Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Deborah M.F. van den Buijs et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
Heart Lung. 2015 Jul-Aug;44(4):309-13
pubmed: 25913808
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Jul;96(1):114-116
pubmed: 31654483
Am Heart J. 2006 Sep;152(3):469.e1-8
pubmed: 16923414
J Invasive Cardiol. 2021 May;33(5):E387-E392
pubmed: 33893793
Circulation. 2019 Jan 15;139(3):395-403
pubmed: 30586721
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Oct 14;12(19):1979-1980
pubmed: 31326423
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020 Dec;21(12):1465-1471
pubmed: 32605901
Perfusion. 2021 Jul 28;:2676591211033947
pubmed: 34318736
JAMA. 2010 Aug 25;304(8):867-74
pubmed: 20736470
Circulation. 2011 Jun 14;123(23):2736-47
pubmed: 21670242
Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2010 Sep;8(9):1247-55
pubmed: 20828347
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 Feb 1;75(2):187-94
pubmed: 19941329
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Jan 24;69(3):278-287
pubmed: 27810347
Circulation. 2012 Oct 2;126(14):1717-27
pubmed: 22935569
Circulation. 2019 Mar 5;139(10):1249-1258
pubmed: 30586755
Neth Heart J. 2020 Mar;28(3):139-144
pubmed: 31782108
Lancet. 2013 Nov 16;382(9905):1638-45
pubmed: 24011548
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Feb;8(2):229-244
pubmed: 25700745
ASAIO J. 2016 Jul-Aug;62(4):397-402
pubmed: 27045967
Cardiol J. 2022;29(1):115-132
pubmed: 33346366
J Invasive Cardiol. 2012 Oct;24(10):544-50
pubmed: 23043040
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Nov 4;52(19):1584-8
pubmed: 19007597
Heart Lung Circ. 2008;17 Suppl 4:S41-7
pubmed: 18964254
J Invasive Cardiol. 2022 Sep;34(9):E665-E671
pubmed: 36001456