Literature DB >> 26542494

Percutaneous left ventricular assist device for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions: Real-world versus clinical trial experience.

Mauricio G Cohen1, Ray Matthews2, Brij Maini3, Simon Dixon4, George Vetrovec5, David Wohns6, Igor Palacios7, Jeffrey Popma8, E Magnus Ohman9, Theodore Schreiber10, William W O'Neill11.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) supported by percutaneous left ventricular assist devices offers a treatment option for patients with severe symptoms, complex and extensive coronary artery disease, and multiple comorbidities. The extrapolation from clinical trial to real-world practice has inherent uncertainties. We compared the characteristics, procedures, and outcomes of high-risk PCI supported by a microaxial pump (Impella 2.5) in a multicenter registry versus the randomized PROTECT II trial (NCT00562016).
METHODS: The USpella registry is an observational multicenter voluntary registry of Impella technology. A total of 637 patients treated between June 2007 and September 2013 were included. Of them, 339 patients would have met enrollment criteria for the PROTECT II trial. These were compared with 216 patients treated in the Impella arm of PROTECT II.
RESULTS: Compared to the clinical trial, registry patients were older (70 ± 11.5 vs 67.5 ± 11.0 years); more likely to have chronic kidney disease (30% vs 22.7%), prior myocardial infarction (69.3% vs 56.5%), or prior bypass surgery (39.4% vs. 30.2%); and had similar prevalence of diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and prior stroke. Registry patients had more extensive coronary artery disease (2.2 vs 1.8 diseased vessels) and had a similar Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality. At hospital discharge, registry patients experienced a similar reduction in New York Heart Association class III to IV symptoms compared to trial patients. Registry patients had a trend toward lower in-hospital mortality (2.7% vs 4.6, P = .27).
CONCLUSIONS: USpella provides a real-world and contemporary estimation of the type of procedures and outcomes of high-risk patients undergoing PCI supported by Impella 2.5. Despite the higher risk of registry patients, clinical outcomes appeared to be favorable and consistent compared with the randomized trial.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26542494     DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2015.08.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Heart J        ISSN: 0002-8703            Impact factor:   4.749


  10 in total

1.  High risk percutaneous coronary interventions-significance of left ventricular assist device for clinical practice.

Authors:  Vladimir Ganyukov; Roman Tarasov
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Percutaneous left ventricular assist device in high risk percutaneous coronary intervention.

Authors:  Omar Kahaly; Konstantinos Dean Boudoulas
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 3.  Contemporary use of real-world data for clinical trial conduct in the United States: a scoping review.

Authors:  James R Rogers; Junghwan Lee; Ziheng Zhou; Ying Kuen Cheung; George Hripcsak; Chunhua Weng
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2021-01-15       Impact factor: 4.497

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

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

5.  Incidence and impact of acute kidney injury on patients with implantable left ventricular assist devices: a Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Charat Thongprayoon; Ploypin Lertjitbanjong; Wisit Cheungpasitporn; Panupong Hansrivijit; Tibor Fülöp; Karthik Kovvuru; Swetha R Kanduri; Paul W Davis; Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula; Tarun Bathini; Kanramon Watthanasuntorn; Narut Prasitlumkum; Ronpichai Chokesuwattanaskul; Supawat Ratanapo; Michael A Mao; Kianoush Kashani
Journal:  Ren Fail       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 2.606

6.  Unprotected versus protected high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 in patients with multivessel disease and severely reduced left ventricular function.

Authors:  Tobias Becher; Frederik Eder; Stefan Baumann; Dirk Loßnitzer; Berit Pollmann; Michael Behnes; Martin Borggrefe; Ibrahim Akin
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 1.817

7.  Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Authors:  Wenhai Shi; Wuwan Wang; Kechun Wang; Wei Huang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 1.817

8.  Circulatory support with Impella CP device during high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions: initial experience in Poland.

Authors:  Dariusz Dudek; Tomasz Rakowski; Adam Sukiennik; Michał Hawranek; Artur Dziewierz; Jacek Kubica; Piotr Suwalski; Robert Gil; Wojciech Wojakowski; Andrzej Ochała; Wiesław Mazurek; Krzysztof Żmudka; Mariusz Gąsior
Journal:  Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej       Date:  2016-08-19       Impact factor: 1.426

9.  Impact of left-ventricular end-diastolic pressure as a predictor of periprocedural hemodynamic deterioration in patients undergoing Impella supported high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions.

Authors:  Fadi Al-Rashid; Amir A Mahabadi; Laura Johannsen; Julian Soldat; Iryna Dykun; Rolf Alexander Jánosi; Matthias Totzeck; Tienush Rassaf
Journal:  Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc       Date:  2019-11-26

10.  Incidence of Acute Kidney Injury Is Lower in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Supported with Impella Compared to ECMO.

Authors:  Julian Schweitzer; Patrick Horn; Fabian Voss; Milena Kivel; Georg Wolff; Christian Jung; Tobias Zeus; Malte Kelm; Ralf Westenfeld
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2021-07-29       Impact factor: 3.216

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.