4.3 Article

Real-world use of the Impella 2.5 circulatory support system in complex high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: The USpella Registry

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ccd.23403

关键词

impella 2; 5; high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention; percutaneous left ventricular assist device; circulatory support

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: We report on the real-world, multicenter experience of the Impella 2.5 circulatory support system during high-risk PCI, a subset of the larger USpella Registry. Background: Standard of care for most patients with compromised ventricular function with multivessel or high-risk coronary lesions has been coronary artery bypass grafting. In poor operative candidates, high-risk PCI is increasingly considered, despite an increased risk for periprocedural hemodynamic compromise. Methods: 175 consecutive patients who underwent high-risk PCI with prophylactic support of the Impella 2.5 were evaluated. The primary safety endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days. Secondary endpoints included safety and efficacy related to the device and patient outcomes, including survival at 12 months. Results: Overall angiographic revascularization was successful in 99% of patients and in 90% of those with multivessel revascularization, resulting in a reduction of the mean SYNTAX score post-PCI from 36 +/- 15 to 18 +/- 15 (P < 0.0001) and an improvement of the ejection fraction (from 31 +/- 15% to 36 +/- 14%, P < 0.0001). In 51% of patients, the functional status improved by one or more NYHA class (P < 0.001). At 30-day follow-up, the rate of MACE was 8%, and survival was 96%, 91%, and 88% at 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively. Conclusions: The use of Impella 2.5 in high-risk PCI appeared feasible and safe in the real-world setting. The utilization of the Impella 2.5 was successful, resulting in favorable short- and midterm angiographic, procedural and clinical outcomes. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据