Cargando…

Prophylactic Impella CP versus VA-ECMO in Patients Undergoing Complex High-Risk Indicated PCI

OBJECTIVES: To compare two different forms of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with complex high-risk indicated PCI (CHIP): the Impella CP system and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). BACKGROUND: To prevent hemodynamic instability in CHIP, various MCS syste...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van den Buijs, Deborah M. F., Wilgenhof, Adriaan, Knaapen, Paul, Zivelonghi, Carlo, Meijers, Tom, Vermeersch, Paul, Arslan, Fatih, Verouden, Niels, Nap, Alex, Sjauw, Krischan, van den Brink, Floris S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9663242/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36447936
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/8167011
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: To compare two different forms of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with complex high-risk indicated PCI (CHIP): the Impella CP system and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). BACKGROUND: To prevent hemodynamic instability in CHIP, various MCS systems are available. However, comparable data on different forms of MCS are not at hand. METHODS: In this multicenter observational study, we retrospectively evaluated all CHIP procedures with the support of an Impella CP or VA-ECMO, who were declined surgery by the heart team. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), mortality at discharge, and 30-day mortality were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients were included, of which 27 patients were supported with Impella CP and 14 patients with VA-ECMO. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced in both groups. No significant difference in periprocedural hemodynamic instability was observed between both groups (3.7% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.22). The composite outcome of MACE showed no significant difference (30.7% vs. 21.4%; p = 0.59). Bleeding complications were higher in the Impella CP group, but showed no significant difference (22.2% vs. 7.1%; p = 0.22) and occurred more at the non-Impella access site. In-hospital mortality was 7.4% in the Impella CP group versus 14.3% in the VA-ECMO group and showed no significant difference (p = 0.48). 30-Day mortality showed no significant difference (7.4% vs. 21.4%; p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CHIP, there were no significant differences in hemodynamic instability and overall MACE between VA-ECMO or Impella CP device as mechanical circulatory support. Based on this study, the choice of either VA-ECMO or Impella CP does not alter the outcome.