Secular Trend in the Use and Implementation of Impella in High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Cardiogenic Shock: A Real-World Experience

被引:0
|
作者
Hritani, Abdul Wahab [1 ]
Wani, Adil S. [1 ]
Olet, Susan [2 ]
Lauterbach, Claire J. [2 ]
Allaqaband, Suhail Q. [1 ]
Bajwa, Tanvir [1 ]
Jan, M. Fuad [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wisconsin, Sch Med & Publ Hlth, Aurora St Lukes Med Ctr, Aurora Sinai,Aurora Cardiovasc Serv, Milwaukee, WI 53201 USA
[2] Aurora Hlth Care, Aurora Res Inst, Milwaukee, WI USA
来源
JOURNAL OF INVASIVE CARDIOLOGY | 2019年 / 31卷 / 09期
关键词
cardiogenic shock; mechanical circulatory support; MECHANICAL CIRCULATORY SUPPORT; ACUTE MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION; RANDOMIZED CLINICAL-TRIAL; INTRAAORTIC BALLOON PUMP; HEART-ASSOCIATION; TEMPORAL TRENDS; 2.5; DEVICE; OUTCOMES; ASSIST; GUIDELINES;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives. Cardiogenic shock carries high mortality despite advancements in therapeutic interventions. Impella [Abiomed] is a mechanical circulatory support device that is being increasingly used in cardiogenic shock patients. Impella is also utilized in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]. We review the trend of Impella use at a single tertiary-care center, retrospectively analyze the outcomes, and discuss the increasing use of this device in the United States. Methods. This a retrospective, observational study of Impella use for two indications, cardiogenic shock and high-risk PCI, at a tertiary-care center. The primary endpoint was the yearly implant rate of Impella and the secondary endpoint was periprocedural complications and major adverse cardiovascular events at 30 days. Results. Forty-four Impella devices were implanted between 2008 and June of 2017. The rate of Impella implantation has significantly increased since its introduction in our facility in 2008. The most common complication was acute renal dysfunction (23%] followed by vascular complications (20%). Mortality at 30 days was 75% in the cardiogenic shock group and 11% in the high-risk PCI group, Conclusion. The use of the Impella device as a mechanical circulatory support has increased since its introduction, although its acceptance rate remains low. Despite its theoretical hemodynamic advantage, the outcome in cardiogenic shock patients remains poor.
引用
收藏
页码:E265 / E270
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Impella support for cardiogenic shock and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: A single-center experience
    Brandao, Mariana
    Caeiro, Daniel
    Pires-Morais, Gustavo
    Almeida, Joao Goncalves
    Teixeira, Pedro Goncalves
    Silva, Marisa Passos
    Ponte, Marta
    Dias, Adelaide
    Oliveira, Marco
    Rodrigues, Alberto
    Braga, Pedro
    REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE CARDIOLOGIA, 2021, 40 (11) : 853 - 861
  • [2] Impella devices: a comprehensive review of their development, use, and impact on cardiogenic shock and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention
    Fishkin, Tzvi
    Isath, Ameesh
    Naami, Edmund
    Aronow, Wilbert S. S.
    Levine, Avi
    Gass, Alan
    EXPERT REVIEW OF CARDIOVASCULAR THERAPY, 2023, 21 (09) : 613 - 620
  • [3] Real-world use of the Impella 2.5 circulatory support system in complex high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: The USpella Registry
    Maini, Brijeshwar
    Naidu, Srihari S.
    Mulukutla, Suresh
    Kleiman, Neal
    Schreiber, Theodore
    Wohns, David
    Dixon, Simon
    Rihal, Charanjit
    Dave, Rajesh
    O'Neill, William
    CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2012, 80 (05) : 717 - 725
  • [4] Use of the Impella 2.5 in High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
    McCulloch, Brenda
    CRITICAL CARE NURSE, 2011, 31 (01) : E1 - E16
  • [5] Timing of Impella implantation and outcomes in cardiogenic shock or high-risk percutaneous coronary revascularization
    Tarantini, Giuseppe
    Masiero, Giulia
    Burzotta, Francesco
    Pazzanese, Vittorio
    Briguori, Carlo
    Trani, Carlo
    Piva, Tommaso
    De Marco, Federico
    Di Biasi, Maurizio
    Pagnotta, Paolo
    Mojoli, Marco
    Casu, Gavino
    Giustino, Gennaro
    Lorenzoni, Giulia
    Montorfano, Matteo
    Ancona, Marco B.
    Pappalardo, Federico
    Chieffo, Alaide
    CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2021, 98 (02) : E222 - E234
  • [6] The Use of Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device in High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Cardiogenic Shock
    Akhondi, Andre Babak
    Lee, Michael S.
    REVIEWS IN CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE, 2013, 14 (2-4) : E144 - E149
  • [7] The role of Impella in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention
    Moura-Ferreira, Sara
    Ladeiras-Lopes, Ricardo
    MBala, Domingas
    Rodrigues, Alberto
    Braga, Pedro
    Gama, Vasco
    REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE CARDIOLOGIA, 2018, 37 (07)
  • [8] Impella use in real-world cardiogenic shock patients: Sobering outcomes
    Abdullah, Khaled Q. A.
    Roedler, Jana, V
    Vom Dahl, Juergen
    Szendey, Istvan
    Haake, Hendrik
    Eckardt, Lars
    Topf, Albert
    Ohnewein, Bernhard
    Jirak, Peter
    Motloch, Lukas J.
    Wernly, Bernhard
    Larbig, Robert
    PLOS ONE, 2021, 16 (02):
  • [9] An unexpected complication after impella use for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention
    Roccasalva, Fausto
    Cannata, Francesco
    Chiarito, Mauro
    Pellegrino, Marta
    Pagnotta, Paolo
    Lancini, Damiano Regazzoli
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL SUPPLEMENTS, 2019, 21 (0J) : J105 - J105
  • [10] Sex, Age, and Shock: Impella-Assisted High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
    Bimal, T.
    Fishbein, J.
    Miklin, D.
    Gandotra, P.
    Omar, W.
    Ong, L.
    Gruberg, L.
    JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2024, 17 (04) : S3 - S3