Abstract 4460: Supported High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using The Impella LP2.5 Device. The Europella Registry

Circulation ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 118 (suppl_18) ◽  
Author(s):  
Krischan D Sjauw ◽  
Christian Hassager ◽  
Paolo L Danna ◽  
Thomas Konorza ◽  
Annemarie E Engström ◽  
...  

Background Patients with complex or high risk coronary lesions, due to extensive and diffuse multivessel, left main or last remaining coronary artery disease are increasingly being treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). As peri-procedural hemodynamic compromise and complications may occur rapidly, many of these high-risk procedures are being performed with mechanical cardiac assistance, particularly in patients with poor left ventricular (LV) function. The Impella LP2.5, a novel percutaneous implantable LVAD able to provide flow up to 2.5 L/min, may be a superior alternative to the traditionally used IABP. Methods We studied safety and feasibility of LV support with the Impella LP2.5 in 144 high-risk PCI patients. All patients were enrolled in the Europella registry, a prospective multicenter registry comprising 10 high volume tertiary PCI centers in Europe. Results Patients were old (62% >70 years), 53% had previous myocardial infarction, 54% had a LV ejection fraction ≤30% and the prevalence of co-morbid conditions was high. Mean EuroSCORE was 8.2 (SD 3.4) and 43% of the patients were refused for CABG. PCI was considered high risk due to left main, last remaining and multivessel coronary artery disease, and low LV function respectively in 53%, 17%, 81% and 35% of the cases. The mean assist time was 1 hour and 28 minutes (SD 51min). There were no intra-procedural major adverse cardiac and cerebral events. In-hospital and 30-day mortality were 4.7% and 5.5%. Rates of myocardial infarction, stroke, bleeding requiring transfusion/surgery and vascular complications at 30 days were respectively 0%, 0.7%, 1.4% and 4.0% Conclusions The safety and feasibility findings of Impella LP2.5 are encouraging. Our study, supports the potential usefulness of hemodynamic support with Impella LP2.5 to prevent intra-procedural major adverse events and hemodynamic compromise in high-risk PCI.

Author(s):  
Cátia Oliveira ◽  
Carlos Braga ◽  
João Costa ◽  
Jorge Marques

Background Improvements in percutaneous coronary intervention have reduced complications in the treatment of left main coronary artery disease. The objective of this study was to characterize percutaneous coronary intervention procedures in left main coronary artery, and evaluate patients’ outcomes. Methods A retrospective study performed from January 2015 to December 2018, in patients submitted to percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary artery for stable coronary artery disease or myocardial infarction, with second-generation drug-eluting stents. Results A total of 82 patients were submitted to percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary artery. Among them, 26.8% had stable coronary artery disease, 50% had non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction, and 23.2% had ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. Cardiogenic shock was present in 20.7% of them. Most patients were male, elderly, with cardiovascular risk factors, namely diabetes, hypertension and hyperlipemia. Among patients with stable coronary artery disease, patients had low to intermediate SYNTAX score. During hospitalization, patients did not develop any complications. During follow-up, cardiovascular death was of 4.5% (n=1). Regarding non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction, during hospitalization, there were no registries of events. During follow-up, 9.1% of patients had cardiovascular-related hospitalizations. A patient died (3%) during the re-hospitalization from severe heart failure. Concerning ST segment elevation myocardial infarction patients, there was one case of acute stent thrombosis during hospitalization resulting in death. One patient was readmitted for percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary artery due to restenosis. Regarding the patients admitted in cardiogenic shock, in-hospital mortality was 58.8%. During follow-up, two patients experienced restenosis and were hospitalized (one underwent coronary artery bypass grafting, and the other, percutaneous coronary intervention). Conclusion This is a real-world study in which we described our experience with percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary artery. In general, percutaneous coronary intervention in left main coronary artery in stable left main coronary artery disease, or in unstable disease with no cardiogenic shock, was a safe procedure. Further studies with extended follow-up are needed.


Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Qais Radaideh ◽  
Mohammed Osman ◽  
Babikir Kheiri ◽  
Ahmad Al-Abdouh ◽  
mahmoud Barbarawi ◽  
...  

Introduction: There has been a continuous debate about the survival benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the management of patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate to severe ischemia. To address this, we performed a meta-analysis of RCTs comparing PCI plus MT vs. MT alone in stable CAD patients to evaluate endpoints of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and MI in a larger cohort of patients with objective evidence of myocardial ischemia. Methods: An electronic database search was conducted for RCTs that compared PCI on top of MT versus MT alone. A random effects model was used to calculate relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of 7 RCTs with 10,043 patients with a mean age of 62.54 ± 1.56 years and a median follow up of 3.9 years were identified. Among patients with (CAD) and moderate to severe ischemia by stress testing, PCI didn’t show any benefit for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality compared to MT(RR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.646-1.12; p= 0.639). There was also no benefit in cardiovascular (CV) death (RR = 0.88 ; 95% CI 0.71-1.09; p =0.18) or myocardial infarction (MI) (RR = 0.271 ; 95% CI 0.782-1.087; P =0.327) in the PCI group as compared to MT. Conclusions: Among patients with (CAD) and evidence of moderate to severe ischemia by stress testing, PCI on top of MT appears to add no mortality benefit as compared to with MT alone.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document