Comparison of patients undergoing protected high risk percutaneous coronary intervention using either intravascular lithotripsy or rotational atherectomy.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-29 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fcvm.2024.1451229
Tobias T Krause, Shazia S Afzal, Anida Gjata, Michael Lindner, Louai Saad, Mirjam Steinbach, Rashad Zayat, Assad Haneya, Nikos Werner, Juergen Leick
{"title":"Comparison of patients undergoing protected high risk percutaneous coronary intervention using either intravascular lithotripsy or rotational atherectomy.","authors":"Tobias T Krause, Shazia S Afzal, Anida Gjata, Michael Lindner, Louai Saad, Mirjam Steinbach, Rashad Zayat, Assad Haneya, Nikos Werner, Juergen Leick","doi":"10.3389/fcvm.2024.1451229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Treating heavily calcified vessels is a challenging task in patients with an impaired left ventricular ejection fraction. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) is increasingly used in patients in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HRPCI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective registry, we investigated 25 patients undergoing a protected HRPCI receiving either intravascular lithotripsy (IVL + pMCS; <i>n</i> = 11) or rotational atherectomy (RA + pMCS; <i>n</i> = 14). The primary endpoint was defined as peri-interventional hemodynamic stability. The secondary endpoint was defined as major adverse cardiac events (MACE).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients in the IVL + pMCS group had a significantly higher mean arterial pressure (MAP) at the end of the procedure (<i>p</i> = 0.04)<i>.</i> However, the Δ-change in MAP was not significant [-12 mmHg (±20.3) vs. -16.1 mmHg (±23.9), <i>p</i> = 0.709]. The proportion of patients requiring post-interventional catecholamines was significantly lower in the IVL + pMCS group (<i>p</i> = 0.02)<i>.</i> The Δ-change in Syntax Score was not significant between groups (IVL + pMCS -22 (±5.8) vs. RA + pMCS -21.2 (±7.6), <i>p</i> = 0.783). MACE did occur less in the group of IVL + pMCS (0% vs. 20%, <i>p</i> = 0.046). Patients with pMCS insertion as a bailout strategy had a higher probability for in-hospital death (<i>p</i> < 0.001) and the occurrence of the slow-reflow phenomenon was associated with long-term mortality (<i>p</i> = 0.021) in the cox regression analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In our cohort patients in the IVL + pMCS group were hemodynamically more stable which led to a lower rate of catecholamine usage. pMCS as a bailout strategy was associated with in-hospital death and the occurrence of the slow reflow phenomenon with all-cause mortality during follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":12414,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine","volume":"11 ","pages":"1451229"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11638216/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1451229","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Treating heavily calcified vessels is a challenging task in patients with an impaired left ventricular ejection fraction. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) is increasingly used in patients in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HRPCI).

Methods: In this retrospective registry, we investigated 25 patients undergoing a protected HRPCI receiving either intravascular lithotripsy (IVL + pMCS; n = 11) or rotational atherectomy (RA + pMCS; n = 14). The primary endpoint was defined as peri-interventional hemodynamic stability. The secondary endpoint was defined as major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

Results: Patients in the IVL + pMCS group had a significantly higher mean arterial pressure (MAP) at the end of the procedure (p = 0.04). However, the Δ-change in MAP was not significant [-12 mmHg (±20.3) vs. -16.1 mmHg (±23.9), p = 0.709]. The proportion of patients requiring post-interventional catecholamines was significantly lower in the IVL + pMCS group (p = 0.02). The Δ-change in Syntax Score was not significant between groups (IVL + pMCS -22 (±5.8) vs. RA + pMCS -21.2 (±7.6), p = 0.783). MACE did occur less in the group of IVL + pMCS (0% vs. 20%, p = 0.046). Patients with pMCS insertion as a bailout strategy had a higher probability for in-hospital death (p < 0.001) and the occurrence of the slow-reflow phenomenon was associated with long-term mortality (p = 0.021) in the cox regression analysis.

Conclusions: In our cohort patients in the IVL + pMCS group were hemodynamically more stable which led to a lower rate of catecholamine usage. pMCS as a bailout strategy was associated with in-hospital death and the occurrence of the slow reflow phenomenon with all-cause mortality during follow-up.

使用血管内碎石术或旋转动脉粥样硬化切除术对接受受保护的高风险经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的患者进行比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
11.10%
发文量
3529
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers? Which frontiers? Where exactly are the frontiers of cardiovascular medicine? And who should be defining these frontiers? At Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine we believe it is worth being curious to foresee and explore beyond the current frontiers. In other words, we would like, through the articles published by our community journal Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, to anticipate the future of cardiovascular medicine, and thus better prevent cardiovascular disorders and improve therapeutic options and outcomes of our patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信