Literature DB >> 29520699

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

Stefan Baumann1,2, Nikos Werner3, Karim Ibrahim4, Ralf Westenfeld5, Fadi Al-Rashid6, Jan-Malte Sinning3, Dirk Westermann7, Andreas Schäfer8, Konstantinos Karatolios9, Timm Bauer10, Tobias Becher1,2, Ibrahim Akin11,12.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is an alternative strategy to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with high perioperative risk. The microaxial Impella® pump (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA), used as prophylactic and temporary support, is currently the most common device for "protected high-risk PCI" to ensure hemodynamic stability during complex coronary intervention.
METHODS: The study is an observational, retrospective multi-center registry. Patients from nine tertiary hospitals in Germany, who have undergone protected high-risk PCI, are included in the present study.
RESULTS: A total of 154 patients (mean age 72.6-10.8 years, 75.3% male) were enrolled. The majority were at a high operative risk illustrated by a logistic EuroSCORE of 14.7-17.4. The initial SYNTAX score was 32.0-13.3, indicating very complex CAD and could be reduced to 14.1-14.3 (p < 0.0001) after PCI. The main reasons for protected PCI were complex coronary anatomy (70.8%), personal impression (56.5%), reduced ventricular ejection fraction (49.4%), comorbidities (47.4%), and surgical turndown (30.5%). Four patients (2.6%) experienced an intrahospital death.
CONCLUSIONS: Data from the study show that protected PCI is a safe and effective approach to revascularize high-risk patients with complex coronary anatomy and comorbidities.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Heart-assist device; Hemodynamics; High-risk PCI; Impella; Mechanical support

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29520699     DOI: 10.1007/s00392-018-1230-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol        ISSN: 1861-0684            Impact factor:   5.460


  15 in total

Review 1.  Impella ventricular support in clinical practice: Collaborative viewpoint from a European expert user group.

Authors:  Francesco Burzotta; Carlo Trani; Sagar N Doshi; Jonathan Townend; Robert Jan van Geuns; Patrick Hunziker; Bernhard Schieffer; Konstantinos Karatolios; Jacob Eifer Møller; Flavio L Ribichini; Andreas Schäfer; José P S Henriques
Journal:  Int J Cardiol       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 4.164

2.  Combination of angiographic and clinical characteristics for the prediction of clinical outcomes in elderly patients undergoing multivessel PCI.

Authors:  Jan-Malte Sinning; Tobias Asdonk; Christoph Erlhöfer; Mariuca Vasa-Nicotera; Eberhard Grube; Georg Nickenig; Nikos Werner
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 5.460

3.  A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study.

Authors:  William W O'Neill; Neal S Kleiman; Jeffrey Moses; Jose P S Henriques; Simon Dixon; Joseph Massaro; Igor Palacios; Brijeshwar Maini; Suresh Mulukutla; Vladimír Dzavík; Jeffrey Popma; Pamela S Douglas; Magnus Ohman
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2012-08-30       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Hemodynamic Support With a Microaxial Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device (Impella) Protects Against Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Authors:  Michael P Flaherty; Sadip Pant; Samir V Patel; Tyler Kilgore; Sujith Dassanayaka; John H Loughran; Wasiq Rawasia; Buddhadeb Dawn; Allen Cheng; Carlo R Bartoli
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 17.367

Review 5.  An insight into short- and long-term mechanical circulatory support systems.

Authors:  Markus Ferrari; Peter Kruzliak; Kyriakos Spiliopoulos
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 5.460

6.  The effectiveness and safety of the Impella ventricular assist device for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review.

Authors:  Jamal Ait Ichou; Natasha Larivée; Mark J Eisenberg; Karine Suissa; Kristian B Filion
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  The Impella Recover 2.5 and TandemHeart ventricular assist devices are safe and associated with equivalent clinical outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention.

Authors:  Jason C Kovacic; Huy T Nguyen; Rucha Karajgikar; Samin K Sharma; Annapoorna S Kini
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  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).

Authors:  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
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2014-01-15       Impact factor: 2.778

9.  Combined Impella and intra-aortic balloon pump support to improve both ventricular unloading and coronary blood flow for myocardial recovery: an experimental study.

Authors:  Loes D C Sauren; Ryan E Accord; Khaled Hamzeh; Monique de Jong; Theo van der Nagel; Frederik H van der Veen; Jos G Maessen
Journal:  Artif Organs       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 3.094

10.  Meta-Analysis of Usefulness of Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Devices for High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.

Authors:  Alexandros Briasoulis; Tesfaye Telila; Mohan Palla; Nestor Mercado; Ashok Kondur; Cindy Grines; Theodore Schreiber
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2016-05-14       Impact factor: 2.778

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Mechanical circulatory support with Impella versus intra-aortic balloon pump or medical treatment in cardiogenic shock-a critical appraisal of current data.

Authors:  Bernhard Wernly; Clemens Seelmaier; David Leistner; Barbara E Stähli; Ingrid Pretsch; Michael Lichtenauer; Christian Jung; Uta C Hoppe; Ulf Landmesser; Holger Thiele; Alexander Lauten
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2019-03-21       Impact factor: 5.460

3.  Joint EAPCI/ACVC expert consensus document on percutaneous ventricular assist devices.

Authors:  Alaide Chieffo; Dariusz Dudek; Christian Hassager; Alain Combes; Mario Gramegna; Sigrun Halvorsen; Kurt Huber; Vijay Kunadian; Jiri Maly; Jacob Eifer Møller; Federico Pappalardo; Giuseppe Tarantini; Guido Tavazzi; Holger Thiele; Christophe Vandenbriele; Nicolas van Mieghem; Pascal Vranckx; Nikos Werner; Susanna Price
Journal:  Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care       Date:  2021-06-30

4.  Long-Term Outcomes of Extent of Revascularization in Complex High Risk and Indicated Patients Undergoing Impella-Protected Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Report from the Roma-Verona Registry.

Authors:  Francesco Burzotta; Giulio Russo; Flavio Ribichini; Anna Piccoli; Domenico D'Amario; Lazzaro Paraggio; Leonardo Previ; Gabriele Pesarini; Italo Porto; Antonio Maria Leone; Giampaolo Niccoli; Cristina Aurigemma; Diana Verdirosi; Filippo Crea; Carlo Trani
Journal:  J Interv Cardiol       Date:  2019-04-09       Impact factor: 2.279

5.  Mechanical circulatory support for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions and cardiogenic shock: Rationale and design of the multicenter, investigator-initiated IMPELLA-PL registry.

Authors:  Arkadiusz Pietrasik; Aleksandra Gasecka; Marek Grygier; Tomasz Pawlowski; Jerzy Sacha; Janusz Kochman
Journal:  Cardiol J       Date:  2022-08-01       Impact factor: 3.487

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.