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
_version_ 1784830829602537472
author 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.
author_facet 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.
author_sort van den Buijs, Deborah M. F.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9663242
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96632422022-11-28 Prophylactic Impella CP versus VA-ECMO in Patients Undergoing Complex High-Risk Indicated PCI 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. J Interv Cardiol Research Article 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. Hindawi 2022-11-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9663242/ /pubmed/36447936 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/8167011 Text en Copyright © 2022 Deborah M.F. van den Buijs et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
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.
Prophylactic Impella CP versus VA-ECMO in Patients Undergoing Complex High-Risk Indicated PCI
title Prophylactic Impella CP versus VA-ECMO in Patients Undergoing Complex High-Risk Indicated PCI
title_full Prophylactic Impella CP versus VA-ECMO in Patients Undergoing Complex High-Risk Indicated PCI
title_fullStr Prophylactic Impella CP versus VA-ECMO in Patients Undergoing Complex High-Risk Indicated PCI
title_full_unstemmed Prophylactic Impella CP versus VA-ECMO in Patients Undergoing Complex High-Risk Indicated PCI
title_short Prophylactic Impella CP versus VA-ECMO in Patients Undergoing Complex High-Risk Indicated PCI
title_sort prophylactic impella cp versus va-ecmo in patients undergoing complex high-risk indicated pci
topic Research Article
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT vandenbuijsdeborahmf prophylacticimpellacpversusvaecmoinpatientsundergoingcomplexhighriskindicatedpci
AT wilgenhofadriaan prophylacticimpellacpversusvaecmoinpatientsundergoingcomplexhighriskindicatedpci
AT knaapenpaul prophylacticimpellacpversusvaecmoinpatientsundergoingcomplexhighriskindicatedpci
AT zivelonghicarlo prophylacticimpellacpversusvaecmoinpatientsundergoingcomplexhighriskindicatedpci
AT meijerstom prophylacticimpellacpversusvaecmoinpatientsundergoingcomplexhighriskindicatedpci
AT vermeerschpaul prophylacticimpellacpversusvaecmoinpatientsundergoingcomplexhighriskindicatedpci
AT arslanfatih prophylacticimpellacpversusvaecmoinpatientsundergoingcomplexhighriskindicatedpci
AT veroudenniels prophylacticimpellacpversusvaecmoinpatientsundergoingcomplexhighriskindicatedpci
AT napalex prophylacticimpellacpversusvaecmoinpatientsundergoingcomplexhighriskindicatedpci
AT sjauwkrischan prophylacticimpellacpversusvaecmoinpatientsundergoingcomplexhighriskindicatedpci
AT vandenbrinkfloriss prophylacticimpellacpversusvaecmoinpatientsundergoingcomplexhighriskindicatedpci