Literature DB >> 19463408

A prospective feasibility trial investigating the use of the Impella 2.5 system in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (The PROTECT I Trial): initial U.S. experience.

Simon R Dixon1, José P S Henriques, Laura Mauri, Krischan Sjauw, Andrew Civitello, Biswajit Kar, Pranav Loyalka, Frederic S Resnic, Paul Teirstein, Raj Makkar, Igor F Palacios, Michael Collins, Jeffrey Moses, Karim Benali, William W O'Neill.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the safety and feasibility of the Impella 2.5 system (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, Massachusetts) in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
BACKGROUND: The Impella 2.5 is a miniaturized percutaneous cardiac assist device, which provides up to 2.5 l/min forward flow from the left ventricle into the systemic circulation.
METHODS: In a prospective, multicenter study, 20 patients underwent high-risk PCI with minimally invasive circulatory support employing the Impella 2.5 system. All patients had poor left ventricular function (ejection fraction <or=35%) and underwent PCI on an unprotected left main coronary artery or last patent coronary conduit. Patients with recent ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or cardiogenic shock were excluded. The primary safety end point was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events at 30 days. The primary efficacy end point was freedom from hemodynamic compromise during PCI (defined as a decrease in mean arterial pressure below 60 mm Hg for >10 min).
RESULTS: The Impella 2.5 device was implanted successfully in all patients. The mean duration of circulatory support was 1.7 +/- 0.6 h (range: 0.4 to 2.5 h). Mean pump flow during PCI was 2.2 +/- 0.3 l/min. At 30 days, the incidence of major adverse cardiac events was 20% (2 patients had a periprocedural myocardial infarction; 2 patients died at days 12 and 14). There was no evidence of aortic valve injury, cardiac perforation, or limb ischemia. Two patients (10%) developed mild, transient hemolysis without clinical sequelae. None of the patients developed hemodynamic compromise during PCI.
CONCLUSIONS: The Impella 2.5 system is safe, easy to implant, and provides excellent hemodynamic support during high-risk PCI. (The PROTECT I Trial; NCT00534859).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19463408     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2008.11.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1936-8798            Impact factor:   11.195


  63 in total

1.  Impella 2.5.

Authors:  Daniel H Raess; David M Weber
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2009-04-02       Impact factor: 4.132

2.  Use of impella ventricular assist device in patients with severe coronary artery disease presenting with cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Venkata K Mukku; Qiangjun Cai; Syed Gilani; Ken Fujise; Alejandro Barbagelata
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2012-09

Review 3.  Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices during cardiogenic shock and high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions.

Authors:  Stéphane Cook; Stephan Windecker
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 2.931

4.  Improvement of myocardial perfusion with a percutaneously inserted left ventricular assist device.

Authors:  Raed A Aqel; Fadi G Hage; Ami E Iskandrian
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2009-08-15       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 5.  Cardiological Society of India: Position statement for the management of ST elevation myocardial infarction in India.

Authors:  Santanu Guha; Rishi Sethi; Saumitra Ray; Vinay K Bahl; S Shanmugasundaram; Prafula Kerkar; Sivasubramanian Ramakrishnan; Rakesh Yadav; Gaurav Chaudhary; Aditya Kapoor; Ajay Mahajan; Ajay Kumar Sinha; Ajit Mullasari; Akshyaya Pradhan; Amal Kumar Banerjee; B P Singh; J Balachander; Brian Pinto; C N Manjunath; Chandrashekhar Makhale; Debabrata Roy; Dhiman Kahali; Geevar Zachariah; G S Wander; H C Kalita; H K Chopra; A Jabir; JagMohan Tharakan; Justin Paul; K Venogopal; K B Baksi; Kajal Ganguly; Kewal C Goswami; M Somasundaram; M K Chhetri; M S Hiremath; M S Ravi; Mrinal Kanti Das; N N Khanna; P B Jayagopal; P K Asokan; P K Deb; P P Mohanan; Praveen Chandra; Col R Girish; O Rabindra Nath; Rakesh Gupta; C Raghu; Sameer Dani; Sandeep Bansal; Sanjay Tyagi; Satyanarayan Routray; Satyendra Tewari; Sarat Chandra; Shishu Shankar Mishra; Sibananda Datta; S S Chaterjee; Soumitra Kumar; Soura Mookerjee; Suma M Victor; Sundeep Mishra; Thomas Alexander; Umesh Chandra Samal; Vijay Trehan
Journal:  Indian Heart J       Date:  2017-03-23

6.  Short-term mechanical management of cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  Jessica L Brown; Roberta C Bogaev; Jack O'Connell
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2011-08

7.  Outcomes of pre-emptive and rescue use of percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients with structural heart disease undergoing catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia.

Authors:  Nilesh Mathuria; Geru Wu; Francia Rojas-Delgado; Mossaab Shuraih; Mehdi Razavi; Andrew Civitello; Leo Simpson; Guilherme Silva; Suwei Wang; MacArthur Elayda; Bharat Kantharia; Steve Singh; O H Frazier; Jie Cheng
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2016-08-06       Impact factor: 1.900

8.  Percutaneous Hemodynamic Support in PCI.

Authors:  Jason Hatch; Dmitri Baklanov
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2014-04

9.  Percutaneous Hemodynamic Support (Impella) in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure and/or Cardiogenic Shock Not Eligible to PROTECT II Trial.

Authors:  Wei Liu; Venkata Kishore Mukku; Syed Gilani; Ken Fujise; Alejandro Barbagelata
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2013-12

Review 10.  Hemodynamic Support Devices for Shock and High-Risk PCI: When and Which One.

Authors:  George W Vetrovec
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 2.931

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.