Impella与主动脉内球囊泵在高危经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中的比较:血管并发症及出血发生率。

Konstantinos Dean Boudoulas, Andrew Pederzolli, Uksha Saini, Richard J Gumina, Ernest L Mazzaferri, Michael Davis, Charles A Bush, Quinn Capers, Raymond Magorien, Vincent J Pompili
{"title":"Impella与主动脉内球囊泵在高危经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中的比较:血管并发症及出血发生率。","authors":"Konstantinos Dean Boudoulas,&nbsp;Andrew Pederzolli,&nbsp;Uksha Saini,&nbsp;Richard J Gumina,&nbsp;Ernest L Mazzaferri,&nbsp;Michael Davis,&nbsp;Charles A Bush,&nbsp;Quinn Capers,&nbsp;Raymond Magorien,&nbsp;Vincent J Pompili","doi":"10.3109/17482941.2012.741244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Compare vascular complications and incidence of bleeding of Impella 2.5 and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Large arterial sheath size for device insertion is associated with vascular and/or bleeding complications; gastrointestinal bleeding may also occur with anti-coagulation use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with an acute coronary syndrome receiving Impella 2.5 or IABP during high-risk PCI were studied (13 Impella; 62 IABP). Vascular complications and incidence of bleeding were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Post-procedure hematocrit was similar between groups. Blood transfusion occurred in 38.4% and 32.2% of patients in the Impella and IABP groups, respectively (P = NS); 65.3%, 30.7% and 3.8% of bleeding were due to vascular access site/procedure related, gastrointestinal and genitourinary, respectively. There was no statistical significant difference in vascular complications between the Impella and IABP groups (15.3% and 6.4% of patients, respectively); mesenteric ischemia (n = 1) and aortic rupture (n = 1) were only in the IABP group. In-hospital and one-year mortality were not statistically significant between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Impella can be used as safely as IABP during high-risk PCI with similar vascular and bleeding complications. Importantly, approximately one third of bleeding was from the gastrointestinal system warranting careful prophylactic measures and monitoring.</p>","PeriodicalId":87385,"journal":{"name":"Acute cardiac care","volume":"14 4","pages":"120-4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3109/17482941.2012.741244","citationCount":"23","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Impella and intra-aortic balloon pump in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: vascular complications and incidence of bleeding.\",\"authors\":\"Konstantinos Dean Boudoulas,&nbsp;Andrew Pederzolli,&nbsp;Uksha Saini,&nbsp;Richard J Gumina,&nbsp;Ernest L Mazzaferri,&nbsp;Michael Davis,&nbsp;Charles A Bush,&nbsp;Quinn Capers,&nbsp;Raymond Magorien,&nbsp;Vincent J Pompili\",\"doi\":\"10.3109/17482941.2012.741244\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Compare vascular complications and incidence of bleeding of Impella 2.5 and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Large arterial sheath size for device insertion is associated with vascular and/or bleeding complications; gastrointestinal bleeding may also occur with anti-coagulation use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with an acute coronary syndrome receiving Impella 2.5 or IABP during high-risk PCI were studied (13 Impella; 62 IABP). Vascular complications and incidence of bleeding were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Post-procedure hematocrit was similar between groups. Blood transfusion occurred in 38.4% and 32.2% of patients in the Impella and IABP groups, respectively (P = NS); 65.3%, 30.7% and 3.8% of bleeding were due to vascular access site/procedure related, gastrointestinal and genitourinary, respectively. There was no statistical significant difference in vascular complications between the Impella and IABP groups (15.3% and 6.4% of patients, respectively); mesenteric ischemia (n = 1) and aortic rupture (n = 1) were only in the IABP group. In-hospital and one-year mortality were not statistically significant between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Impella can be used as safely as IABP during high-risk PCI with similar vascular and bleeding complications. Importantly, approximately one third of bleeding was from the gastrointestinal system warranting careful prophylactic measures and monitoring.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87385,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acute cardiac care\",\"volume\":\"14 4\",\"pages\":\"120-4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3109/17482941.2012.741244\",\"citationCount\":\"23\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acute cardiac care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3109/17482941.2012.741244\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acute cardiac care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3109/17482941.2012.741244","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

摘要

目的:比较Impella 2.5与主动脉内球囊泵(IABP)在高危经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)中的血管并发症及出血发生率。背景:装置插入时动脉鞘尺寸过大与血管和/或出血并发症相关;使用抗凝剂也可能发生胃肠道出血。方法:对高危PCI术中接受Impella 2.5或IABP的急性冠状动脉综合征患者进行研究(13 Impella;62 IABP)。比较两组血管并发症及出血发生率。结果:两组术后红细胞压积相近。Impella组和IABP组输血发生率分别为38.4%和32.2% (P = NS);65.3%、30.7%和3.8%的出血与血管通路部位/手术相关、胃肠道和泌尿生殖系统有关。Impella组与IABP组血管并发症发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(分别为15.3%和6.4%);仅IABP组出现肠系膜缺血(n = 1)和主动脉破裂(n = 1)。住院和一年死亡率组间无统计学差异。结论:在血管及出血并发症相似的高危PCI手术中,Impella与IABP一样安全。重要的是,大约三分之一的出血来自胃肠道系统,需要仔细的预防措施和监测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Impella and intra-aortic balloon pump in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: vascular complications and incidence of bleeding.

Objective: Compare vascular complications and incidence of bleeding of Impella 2.5 and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).

Background: Large arterial sheath size for device insertion is associated with vascular and/or bleeding complications; gastrointestinal bleeding may also occur with anti-coagulation use.

Methods: Patients with an acute coronary syndrome receiving Impella 2.5 or IABP during high-risk PCI were studied (13 Impella; 62 IABP). Vascular complications and incidence of bleeding were compared.

Results: Post-procedure hematocrit was similar between groups. Blood transfusion occurred in 38.4% and 32.2% of patients in the Impella and IABP groups, respectively (P = NS); 65.3%, 30.7% and 3.8% of bleeding were due to vascular access site/procedure related, gastrointestinal and genitourinary, respectively. There was no statistical significant difference in vascular complications between the Impella and IABP groups (15.3% and 6.4% of patients, respectively); mesenteric ischemia (n = 1) and aortic rupture (n = 1) were only in the IABP group. In-hospital and one-year mortality were not statistically significant between groups.

Conclusion: Impella can be used as safely as IABP during high-risk PCI with similar vascular and bleeding complications. Importantly, approximately one third of bleeding was from the gastrointestinal system warranting careful prophylactic measures and monitoring.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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