New-generation mechanical circulatory support during high-risk PCI: a cross-sectional analysis

被引:31
作者
Ameloot, Koen [1 ]
Bastos, Marcello [1 ]
Daemen, Joost [1 ]
Schreuder, Jan [1 ]
Boersma, Eric [1 ]
Zijlstra, Felix [1 ]
Van Mieghem, Nicolas M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Erasmus MC, Thoraxctr, Dept Intervent Cardiol, Room Bd 171,S Gravendijkwal 230, NL-3015 CE Rotterdam, Netherlands
关键词
depressed left ventricular function; NSTEMI; stable angina; ventricular assist device; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; INTRAAORTIC BALLOON PUMP; COUNTERPULSATION; TRIAL;
D O I
10.4244/EIJ-D-18-01126
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Aims: The aim of the study was to establish the value of new-generation mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices such as HeartMate PHP, Impella CP and PulseCath iVAC2. Methods and results: We retrospectively analysed all consecutive elective high-risk PCI procedures performed in the Erasmus Medical Center (2011-2018) in order to compare MCS protected and unprotected patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of procedure-related adverse events including death (<24 hours), cardiac arrest, need for vasopressors, rescue MCS, endotracheal intubation and limb ischaemia with need for surgery. Secondary endpoints included 30-day survival. A total of 198 elective high-risk PCI patients were included (69 [35%] MCS protected, 129 [65%] MCS unprotected). When compared with unprotected patients, MCS protected patients had a significantly worse left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (25 +/- 10 vs 33 +/- 8%, p<0.01) and higher SYNTAX I score (33 +/- 11 vs 24 +/- 8, p<0.01). The primary endpoint occurred in 26 (20%) of the unprotected patients and in 6 (9%) of the MCS protected patients (OR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.15-0.97, p=0.04). Patients under 75 years of age, with a SYNTAX I score above 32 and with an LVEF below 30% showed most potential benefit from MCS. Survival during the first 24 hours after the procedure and at 30 days was significantly higher in MCS protected patients (100% vs 95%, p=0.04 at 24 hours, and 98% vs 87%, OR 10.32, 95% CI: 1.34-79.31, p=0.006 at 30 days). Conclusions: In a consecutive real-world cohort of high-risk PCI patients, protection with new-generation MCS resulted in better procedural outcomes despite worse EF and more complex coronary artery disease at baseline. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.
引用
收藏
页码:427 / 433
页数:7
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]  
Amsterdam EA, 2014, J AM COLL CARDIOL, V64, pE139, DOI [10.1016/j.jacc.2014.09.017, 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000134, 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.09.016, 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.10.011]
[2]   A Practical Approach to Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention An Interventional Perspective [J].
Atkinson, Tamara M. ;
Ohman, E. Magnus ;
O'Neill, William W. ;
Rab, Tanveer ;
Cigarroa, Joaquin E. .
JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2016, 9 (09) :871-883
[3]   Haemodynamic impact of a new pulsatile mechanical circulatory support in high-risk coronary stenting [J].
Bastos, Marcelo Barros ;
Daemen, Joost ;
Van Mieghem, Nicolas M. .
EUROINTERVENTION, 2018, 14 (07) :824-825
[4]   Pulsatile iVAC 2L circulatory support in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention [J].
den Uil, Corstiaan A. ;
Daemen, Joost ;
Lenzen, Mattie J. ;
Maugenest, Anne-Marie ;
Joziasse, Linda ;
van Geuns, Robert Jan ;
Van Mieghem, Nicolas M. .
EUROINTERVENTION, 2017, 12 (14) :1689-1696
[5]   Strategies for Multivessel Revascularization in Patients with Diabetes [J].
Farkouh, Michael E. ;
Domanski, Michael ;
Sleeper, Lynn A. ;
Siami, Flora S. ;
Dangas, George ;
Mack, Michael ;
Yang, May ;
Cohen, David J. ;
Rosenberg, Yves ;
Solomon, Scott D. ;
Desai, Akshay S. ;
Gersh, Bernard J. ;
Magnuson, Elizabeth A. ;
Lansky, Alexandra ;
Boineau, Robin ;
Weinberger, Jesse ;
Ramanathan, Krishnan ;
Sousa, J. Eduardo ;
Rankin, Jamie ;
Bhargava, Balram ;
Buse, John ;
Hueb, Whady ;
Smith, Craig R. ;
Muratov, Victoria ;
Bansilal, Sameer ;
King, Spencer, III ;
Bertrand, Michel ;
Fuster, Valentin .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2012, 367 (25) :2375-2384
[6]  
Fihn SD, 2012, J AM COLL CARDIOL, V60, pE44, DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.07.013
[7]  
Mäkikallio T, 2016, LANCET, V388, P2742
[8]   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 [J].
O'Neill, William W. ;
Kleiman, Neal S. ;
Moses, Jeffrey ;
Henriques, Jose P. S. ;
Dixon, Simon ;
Massaro, Joseph ;
Palacios, Igor ;
Maini, Brijeshwar ;
Mulukutla, Suresh ;
Dzavik, Vladimir ;
Popma, Jeffrey ;
Douglas, Pamela S. ;
Ohman, Magnus .
CIRCULATION, 2012, 126 (14) :1717-+
[9]   Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction [J].
Ouweneel, Dagmar M. ;
Eriksen, Erlend ;
Sjauw, Krischan D. ;
van Dongen, Ivo M. ;
Hirsch, Alexander ;
Packer, Erik J. S. ;
Vis, M. Marije ;
Wykrzykowska, Joanna J. ;
Koch, Karel T. ;
Baan, Jan ;
de Winter, Robbert J. ;
Piek, Jan J. ;
Lagrand, Wim K. ;
de Mol, Bas A. J. M. ;
Tijssen, Jan G. P. ;
Henriques, Jose P. S. .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2017, 69 (03) :278-287
[10]   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 [J].
Perera, Divaka ;
Stables, Rod ;
Clayton, Tim ;
De Silva, Kalpa ;
Lumley, Matthew ;
Clack, Lucy ;
Thomas, Martyn ;
Redwood, Simon .
CIRCULATION, 2013, 127 (02) :207-212