Deborah M.F. van den Buijs, Adriaan Wilgenhof, Paul Knaapen, Carlo Zivelonghi, Tom Meijers, Paul Vermeersch, Fatih Arslan, Niels Verouden, Alex Nap, Krischan Sjauw, Floris S. van den Brink
{"title":"预防性Impella CP与VA-ECMO在复杂高危PCI患者中的应用","authors":"Deborah M.F. van den Buijs, Adriaan Wilgenhof, Paul Knaapen, Carlo Zivelonghi, Tom Meijers, Paul Vermeersch, Fatih Arslan, Niels Verouden, Alex Nap, Krischan Sjauw, Floris S. van den Brink","doi":"10.1155/2022/8167011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><i>Objectives</i>. 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). <i>Background</i>. To prevent hemodynamic instability in CHIP, various MCS systems are available. However, comparable data on different forms of MCS are not at hand. <i>Methods</i>. 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. <i>Results</i>. 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%; <i>p</i> = 0.22). The composite outcome of MACE showed no significant difference (30.7% vs. 21.4%; <i>p</i> = 0.59). Bleeding complications were higher in the Impella CP group, but showed no significant difference (22.2% vs. 7.1%; <i>p</i> = 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 (<i>p</i> = 0.48). 30-Day mortality showed no significant difference (7.4% vs. 21.4%; <i>p</i> = 0.09). <i>Conclusions</i>. 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.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16329,"journal":{"name":"Journal of interventional cardiology","volume":"2022 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9663242/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prophylactic Impella CP versus VA-ECMO in Patients Undergoing Complex High-Risk Indicated PCI\",\"authors\":\"Deborah M.F. van den Buijs, Adriaan Wilgenhof, Paul Knaapen, Carlo Zivelonghi, Tom Meijers, Paul Vermeersch, Fatih Arslan, Niels Verouden, Alex Nap, Krischan Sjauw, Floris S. van den Brink\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2022/8167011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n <p><i>Objectives</i>. 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). <i>Background</i>. To prevent hemodynamic instability in CHIP, various MCS systems are available. However, comparable data on different forms of MCS are not at hand. <i>Methods</i>. 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. <i>Results</i>. 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%; <i>p</i> = 0.22). The composite outcome of MACE showed no significant difference (30.7% vs. 21.4%; <i>p</i> = 0.59). Bleeding complications were higher in the Impella CP group, but showed no significant difference (22.2% vs. 7.1%; <i>p</i> = 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 (<i>p</i> = 0.48). 30-Day mortality showed no significant difference (7.4% vs. 21.4%; <i>p</i> = 0.09). <i>Conclusions</i>. 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.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of interventional cardiology\",\"volume\":\"2022 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9663242/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of interventional cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2022/8167011\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of interventional cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2022/8167011","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:比较两种不同形式的机械循环支持(MCS)在复杂高危PCI (CHIP)患者中的应用:Impella CP系统和静脉-动脉体外膜氧合(VA-ECMO)。背景:为了防止CHIP的血流动力学不稳定,各种MCS系统都是可用的。然而,目前还没有关于不同形式MCS的可比数据。方法:在这项多中心观察性研究中,我们回顾性评估了所有由Impella CP或VA-ECMO支持的CHIP手术,这些手术被心脏团队拒绝手术。评估主要不良心脏事件(MACE)、出院死亡率和30天死亡率。结果:共纳入41例患者,其中Impella CP支持27例,VA-ECMO支持14例。两组的基线特征平衡良好。两组患者术中血流动力学不稳定性无显著差异(3.7% vs. 14.3%;P = 0.22)。MACE的综合结局无显著性差异(30.7% vs. 21.4%;P = 0.59)。Impella CP组出血并发症发生率较高,但差异无统计学意义(22.2% vs 7.1%;p = 0.22),且在非impella通路部位发生较多。Impella CP组的住院死亡率为7.4%,VA-ECMO组为14.3%,差异无统计学意义(p = 0.48)。30天死亡率无显著差异(7.4% vs. 21.4%;P = 0.09)。结论:在CHIP患者中,作为机械循环支持的VA-ECMO和Impella CP装置在血流动力学不稳定性和总体MACE方面无显著差异。根据本研究,选择VA-ECMO或Impella CP并不会改变结果。
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 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.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Interventional Cardiology is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that provides a forum for cardiologists determined to stay current in the diagnosis, investigation, and management of patients with cardiovascular disease and its associated complications. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies focusing on new procedures and techniques in all major subject areas in the field, including:
Acute coronary syndrome
Coronary disease
Congenital heart diseases
Myocardial infarction
Peripheral arterial disease
Valvular heart disease
Cardiac hemodynamics and physiology
Haemostasis and thrombosis