Literature DB >> 24527505

Impact of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump on prognostically important clinical outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (from the PROTECT II randomized trial).

George D Dangas, Annapoorna S Kini, Samin K Sharma, Jose P S Henriques, Bimmer E Claessen, Simon R Dixon, Joseph M Massaro, Igor Palacios, Jeffrey J Popma, Magnus Ohman, Gregg W Stone, William W O'Neill.   

Abstract

A periprocedural myocardial infarction, defined as the advent of new Q-waves or a creatine kinase-MB elevation >83 normal has been previously validated as predictive of subsequent mortality. We examined the effects of using this clinically relevant definition of periprocedural myocardial infarction instead of the original protocol definition on outcomes in the recent PROTECT II [A Prospective, Multi-center, Randomized Controlled Trial of the IMPELLA RECOVER LP 2.5 System Versus Intra Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) in Patients Undergoing Non Emergent High Risk PCI] trial. In this trial, patients who were undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were randomized to either an intraaortic balloon pump (IABP, n[211) or a left ventricular assist device (Impella, n[216). All eligible patients per study protocol were included in the analysis. Patient outcomes were compared up to 90 days, the longest available follow-up, on the composite end points of major adverse events (MAE) and major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE [ death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization). At 90 days, the rates of both composite end points were lower in the Impella group compared with the IABP group (MAE, 37% vs 49%, p [ 0.014 respectively; MACCE, 22% vs 31%, p [ 0.034 respectively). There were no differences in death or large myocardial infarction between the 2 arms. By multivariable analysis, treatment with Impella as opposed to IABP was an independent predictor for freedom from MAE (odds ratio[0.75 [95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.92], p[0.007) andMACCE (odds ratio[0.76 [95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.96], p[0.020) at 90 days postprocedure. In conclusion, hemodynamic support with Impella compared with IABP during high-risk PCI in the PROTECT-II trial resulted in improved event-free survival at 3-month follow-up; this finding was further supported by multivariate analyses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24527505     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.09.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  25 in total

Review 1.  [Mechanical circulatory support in terminal heart failure].

Authors:  M Derwall; A Moza; A Brücken
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 1.041

2.  Indication and short-term clinical outcomes of high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with microaxial Impella® pump: results from the German Impella® registry.

Authors:  Stefan Baumann; Nikos Werner; Karim Ibrahim; Ralf Westenfeld; Fadi Al-Rashid; Jan-Malte Sinning; Dirk Westermann; Andreas Schäfer; Konstantinos Karatolios; Timm Bauer; Tobias Becher; Ibrahim Akin
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2018-03-08       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 3.  Complex PCI procedures: challenges for the interventional cardiologist.

Authors:  Nikos Werner; Georg Nickenig; Jan-Malte Sinning
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 4.  Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2017-02-07

Review 5.  Use of left ventricular support devices during acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous coronary intervention.

Authors:  Jon Spiro; Sagar N Doshi
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 6.  Contemporary coronary artery bypass graft surgery and subsequent percutaneous revascularization.

Authors:  Frans J Beerkens; Bimmer E Claessen; Marielle Mahan; Mario F L Gaudino; Derrick Y Tam; José P S Henriques; Roxana Mehran; George D Dangas
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2021-10-05       Impact factor: 32.419

7.  Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States.

Authors:  Rohan Khera; Peter Cram; Mary Vaughan-Sarrazin; Phillip A Horwitz; Saket Girotra
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 2.778

Review 8.  Temporary mechanical circulatory support: a review of the options, indications, and outcomes.

Authors:  Nisha A Gilotra; Gerin R Stevens
Journal:  Clin Med Insights Cardiol       Date:  2015-02-03

9.  Compliance Index, a Marker of Peripheral Arterial Stiffness, may Predict Renal Function Decline in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease.

Authors:  Te-Hui Kuo; Deng-Chi Yang; Wei-Hung Lin; Chin-Chung Tseng; Ju-Yi Chen; Chin-Shan Ho; Meng-Fu Cheng; Wei-Chuan Tsai; Ming-Cheng Wang
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2015-06-12       Impact factor: 3.738

Review 10.  Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices and ECMO in the Management of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.

Authors:  William E Lawson; Michael Koo
Journal:  Clin Med Insights Cardiol       Date:  2015-04-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.