Real-world use of the Impella 2.5 circulatory support system in complex high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: The USpella Registry

被引:105
|
作者
Maini, Brijeshwar [1 ]
Naidu, Srihari S. [2 ]
Mulukutla, Suresh [3 ]
Kleiman, Neal [4 ]
Schreiber, Theodore [5 ]
Wohns, David [6 ]
Dixon, Simon [7 ]
Rihal, Charanjit [8 ]
Dave, Rajesh [1 ]
O'Neill, William [9 ]
机构
[1] Pinnacle Hlth Syst, Harrisburg, PA USA
[2] Winthrop Univ Hosp, Mineola, NY 11501 USA
[3] Univ Pittsburgh, Med Ctr, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[4] Methodist Debakey Heart & Vasc Ctr, Houston, TX USA
[5] Harper Univ Hosp, Detroit, MI USA
[6] Spectrum Hlth, Grand Rapids, MI USA
[7] William Beaumont Univ Hosp, Royal Oak, MI USA
[8] Mayo Clin, Rochester, MN USA
[9] Univ Miami, Miami, FL USA
关键词
impella; 2; 5; high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention; percutaneous left ventricular assist device; circulatory support; INTRAAORTIC BALLOON PUMP; LONG-TERM SAFETY; MULTIVESSEL DISEASE; BYPASS-SURGERY; ASSIST DEVICE; REVASCULARIZATION; FEASIBILITY; ARTS;
D O I
10.1002/ccd.23403
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives: We report on the real-world, multicenter experience of the Impella 2.5 circulatory support system during high-risk PCI, a subset of the larger USpella Registry. Background: Standard of care for most patients with compromised ventricular function with multivessel or high-risk coronary lesions has been coronary artery bypass grafting. In poor operative candidates, high-risk PCI is increasingly considered, despite an increased risk for periprocedural hemodynamic compromise. Methods: 175 consecutive patients who underwent high-risk PCI with prophylactic support of the Impella 2.5 were evaluated. The primary safety endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days. Secondary endpoints included safety and efficacy related to the device and patient outcomes, including survival at 12 months. Results: Overall angiographic revascularization was successful in 99% of patients and in 90% of those with multivessel revascularization, resulting in a reduction of the mean SYNTAX score post-PCI from 36 +/- 15 to 18 +/- 15 (P < 0.0001) and an improvement of the ejection fraction (from 31 +/- 15% to 36 +/- 14%, P < 0.0001). In 51% of patients, the functional status improved by one or more NYHA class (P < 0.001). At 30-day follow-up, the rate of MACE was 8%, and survival was 96%, 91%, and 88% at 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively. Conclusions: The use of Impella 2.5 in high-risk PCI appeared feasible and safe in the real-world setting. The utilization of the Impella 2.5 was successful, resulting in favorable short- and midterm angiographic, procedural and clinical outcomes. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:717 / 725
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Hemodynamic Support Using the Impella 2.5 Catheter System during High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in a Patient with Severe Aortic Stenosis
    Harjai, Kishore J.
    O'Neill, William W.
    JOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY, 2010, 23 (01) : 66 - 69
  • [22] Impella 2.5 Support Protects Against Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
    Flaherty, Michael
    Pant, Sadip
    Kilgore, Tyler
    Dassanayaka, Sujith
    Loughran, John
    Rawasia, Wasiq
    Cheng, Allen
    Dawn, Buddhadeb
    Bartoli, Carlo
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2016, 68 (18) : B49 - B50
  • [23] Use of mechanical circulatory support in high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions
    Al Jebaje, Zaid
    Jabri, Ahmad
    Mishra, Tushar
    Halboni, Adnan
    Ayyad, Asem
    Alameh, Anas
    Ellauzi, Rama
    Alexandrino, Francisco B.
    Alaswad, Khaldoon
    Basir, Mir Babar
    PROGRESS IN CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES, 2025, 88 : 60 - 67
  • [24] Routine Usage of Impella for High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
    O'Neill, William W.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2025, 239 : 18 - 19
  • [25] Mechanical circulatory support in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: IIb or not IIb?
    Ayyoub, Alaa
    Levy, Michael S.
    CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2020, 95 (03) : 513 - 514
  • [26] Mechanical Circulatory Support Prior to Elective High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
    Mawri, Sagger
    Dabbagh, Mohammed
    Basir, Babar Mir
    Voeltz, Michele
    Khandelwal, Akshay
    Koenig, Gerald
    Alqarqaz, Mohammad
    O'Neill, William
    Zaidan, Mohammad
    Alaswad, Khaldoon
    JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2019, 12 (04) : S15 - S15
  • [27] Short term outcomes of Impella circulatory support for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Elia, Edoardo
    Iannaccone, Mario
    D'Ascenzo, Fabrizio
    Gallone, Guglielmo
    Colombo, Francesco
    Albani, Stefano
    Attisani, Matteo
    Rinaldi, Mauro
    Boccuzzi, Giacomo
    Conrotto, Federico
    Noussan, Patrizia
    De Ferrari, Gaetano Maria
    CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2022, 99 (01) : 27 - 36
  • [28] Mechanical Circulatory Support via Percutaneous Transcarotid Access for High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
    Azzalini, Lorenzo
    Condos, Gregory
    Kearney, Kathleen E.
    Lombardi, William L.
    McCabe, James M.
    JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2023, 16 (01) : 106 - 108
  • [29] Safety and feasibility of elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention procedures with left ventricular support of the Impella Recover LP 2.5
    Henriques, Jose P. S.
    Sjauw, Krischan D.
    Remmelink, Maurice
    Baon, Jan, Jr.
    van der Schaaf, Rene J.
    Vis, Marije M.
    Koch, Karel T.
    Tijssen, Jan G. P.
    Piek, Jan J.
    de Winter, Robbert J.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2006, 98 (8A): : 88M - 88M
  • [30] Complex High-Risk Indicated Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Prophylactic Use of the Impella CP Ventricular Assist Device
    van den Buijs, Deborah M. F.
    van den Brink, Floris S.
    Wilgenhof, Adriaan
    Zivelonghi, Carlo
    Verouden, Niels
    Knaapen, Paul
    Sjauw, Krischan D.
    Vermeersch, Paul
    Nap, Alex
    JOURNAL OF INVASIVE CARDIOLOGY, 2022, 34 (09): : E665 - E671