High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Native Coronary Arteries Without Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Coronary Syndrome Without Cardiogenic Shock

Author(s):  
Nauman Khalid ◽  
Cheng Zhang ◽  
Corey Shea ◽  
Evan Shlofmitz ◽  
Yuefeng Chen ◽  
...  
Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nauman Khalid ◽  
Hasan Javed ◽  
Cheng Zhang ◽  
Corey Shea ◽  
Evan Shlofmitz ◽  
...  

Background: Use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HRPCI) remains controversial with lack of randomized evidence and associated complication risks from these devices. We investigated whether performing HRPCI without elective MCS in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is safe and feasible. Methods: A single-center, retrospective analysis was done for patients presenting with ACS meeting HRPCI criteria (defined by Interventional Council of American College of Cardiology) including unprotected left main disease, last remaining conduit, left ventricular ejection fraction<35%, 3-vessel coronary artery disease, severe aortic stenosis or severe mitral regurgitation. Clinical, procedural, major in-hospital and 30-days cardiovascular outcomes were assessed. Results: From 2003-2018, 1992 patients (2887 lesions) with unstable angina (UA) or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and 920 patients (1328 lesions) with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) underwent HRPCI. The study population had 64.8% men and 52.9% Caucasians in UA/NSTEMI-group and 64.3% men and 53.7% Caucasians in STEMI-group. Mean age for UA/NSTEMI and STEMI patients were 68.6+/-12.69 and 64.52+/-13.54 years respectively. Procedural success was achieved in 96.5% of UA/NSTEMI and 97.9% of STEMI patients. In-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality was 2.1% for UA/NSTEMI and 4.7% for STEMI patients. Bailout MCS was required in 2.4% of UA/NSTEMI and 9.9% of STEMI patients. Rates of major complications for UA/NSTEMI and STEMI were low, except for renal failure (Panel A). Panel B provides HRPCI criteria distribution. Conclusions: HRPCI without elective MCS is safe and feasible in majority of ACS patients challenging the current practices of professional societies. A randomized trial comparing unprotected vs. protected HRPCI for ACS patients is warranted to identify patients that would benefit from MCS.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (08) ◽  
pp. 5578-5583
Author(s):  
Usman Sarwar ◽  
Nikky Bardia ◽  
Amod Amritphale ◽  
Hassan Tahir ◽  
MD Ghulam M.Awan

Statistical data has shown that patients now treated in cardiac catheterization laboratories are older with several comorbidities, including renal failure, diabetes, and heart failure [1]. In past patients who were not suitable candidates for percutaneous coronary intervention due to their numerous comorbidities now seems to be a suitable candidate due to tremendous advancements in the field of interventional cardiology like new stent design and availability of advance mechanical circulatory support devices, i.e., Impella performing PCI on these high-risk patients become a viable option. There are two areas of cardiology in which mechanical circulatory support devices keep evolving: one is high-risk (percutaneous coronary intervention) PCI, and the other is a cardiogenic shock that is refractory to initial pressor support.  In this article, we review evidence base data regarding the use of mechanical circulatory support devices in high-risk percutaneous intervention and cardiogenic shock.


Author(s):  
Rohan Khera ◽  
Peter Cram ◽  
Mary Vaughan-Sarrazin ◽  
Phillip A Horwitz ◽  
Saket Girotra

Introduction: Percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVAD) and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) are used to provide mechanical circulatory support for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Due to limited evidence from randomized controlled trials, we compared clinical outcomes between PVAD and IABP in PCI patients using a propensity-matched analysis. Methods: Adult patients who underwent PCI during 2004-2012 and also received either a PVAD or an IABP on the same day as PCI were identified in the National Inpatient Sample using ICD9 procedure codes. We compared in-hospital mortality for PVAD vs. IABP using a 1:2 propensity-matched analysis - both overall and in subgroups with cardiogenic shock, AMI without cardiogenic shock and no cardiogenic shock or AMI. Results: We identified 5031 patients who received a PVAD and 122,333 who received an IABP on the same day as PCI. Patients who received PVAD were older (69 vs 65 years), more likely to be men (74% vs 69%), admitted electively (30% vs 11%) but less likely to have AMI (52% vs 90%), cardiogenic shock (23% vs 50%), cardiac arrest (12% vs 25%) or need mechanical ventilation (16% vs 29%) compared to IABP patients (P<0.001 for all). In contrast, prevalence of heart failure (68% vs 41%), valvular heart disease (22% vs 13%), chronic kidney disease (27% vs 11%), hypertension (71% vs 56%) and diabetes (46% vs 32%) was higher in PVAD recipients (P<0.001 for all). Unadjusted in-hospital mortality in PVAD recipients was lower compared to IABP patients - both overall (12.8% vs 20.9%, P<0.001) and in the cardiogenic shock subgroup (31% vs 38%, P=0.04) but was similar in patients without cardiogenic shock. After propensity-matching and successful balancing of covariates (figure) we found no difference in mortality in PVAD and IABP recipients (odds ratio [OR] 0.88, 95% CI 0.70-1.09). Our findings were also consistent among patients with cardiogenic shock (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.99-1.90), AMI without cardiogenic shock (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.46-1.14) and no cardiogenic shock or AMI (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.27-1.06). Conclusion: The lower unadjusted mortality in patients undergoing PCI with PVAD support compared to IABP support may be due to selective use of PVADs in a lower risk population. Randomized trials are necessary to establish the clinical effectiveness of PVADs to support high-risk PCI.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-26
Author(s):  
R. A. Kornelyuk ◽  
D. L. Shukevich ◽  
I. E. Vereshchagin ◽  
V. I. Ganyukov

Purpose of the study: to evaluate the organoprotective effects of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and intra-aortic balloon pump during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndrome.Materials and methods. Patients required mechanical circulatory support (n=51) were divided into two study groups: patients who received mechanical circulatory support by veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (Group 1, n=29) during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention, and Group 2 patients who received mechanical circulatory support by intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (Group 2, n=22). The dynamics of instrumental parameters and laboratory markers of organ damage were evaluated by electrocardiography, echocardiography, determining troponin I, creatine phosphokinases and creatinine levels, NGAL, venous blood saturation to compare the organoprotective properties of mechanical circulation support in the intra- and postoperative period.Results. The following values of the parameters were found the next day after the intervention: troponin I — 0.18 (0.1; 2.3) ng/ml in the ECMO group and 1.64 (0.92; 2.36) ng/ml in the IABP group (P=0.045); serum NGAL —139.4 (88.1; 166.7) ng/ml in the ECMO group and 212.3 (102; 279) in the IABP group (P=0.027); renal dysfunction (stages R, I, F according to RIFLE) — 2 (6.8%) observations in the ECMO group and 7 (31.8%) in the IABP group (P=0.021); multiple organ failure (2 or more points according to SOFA) — 3 (10.3%) cases in the ECMO group and 12 (54.5%) in the IABP group (P=0.001).Conclusion. Veno-arterial ECMO in comparison with IABP has a more pronounced organoprotective effect by achieving better hemodynamic stability, which, in turn, prevents hypoxia and the subsequent development of organ dysfunction. In addition, in conditions of veno-arterial ECMO, better completeness and quality of revascularization is ensured, and hospital mortality is also reduced.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document