The impella recover 2.5 and TandemHeart ventricular assist devices are safe and associated with equivalent clinical outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention

被引:31
|
作者
Kovacic, Jason C. [1 ]
Nguyen, Huy T. [1 ]
Karajgikar, Rucha [1 ]
Sharma, Samin K. [1 ]
Kini, Annapoorna S. [1 ]
机构
[1] Mt Sinai Hosp, Cardiovasc Inst, Cardiac Catheterizat Lab, New York, NY 10029 USA
关键词
left ventricular assist device; coronary disease; revascularization; MULTIVARIATE PREDICTION; SYNTAX SCORE; ARTERY; SUPPORT;
D O I
10.1002/ccd.22929
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives: To compare the practical use, safety, and clinical outcomes associated with the TandemHeart (TH) versus Impella Recover 2.5 (IR2.5) devices when used for circulatory support during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background: Small studies and registries suggest safety and efficacy for the TH and IR2.5 percutaneous-left ventricular assist devices (P-LVADs). However, these P-LVADs differ markedly in their insertion, operation, and manner of circulatory augmentation. To date, no study has compared these devices. Methods: We identified 68 patients (49 males, 19 females; age 71.1 +/- 12.1 years) from our single-center database that underwent high-risk PCI with P-LVAD support from April 2005 to June 2010 (32 with TH, 36 with IR2.5). Relevant data were extracted for analysis. Results: Baseline demographics were similar, including low LVEF (overall mean 31.0 +/- 13.7%) and elevated STS mortality risk score (4.2 +/- 3.7%). Angiographic characteristics were also similar, with a mean of 2.4 +/- 1.0 lesions treated per patient, and 29% undergoing left main PCI. PCI success rates were 99% in both groups, with similar in-hospital outcomes and a combined 7% major vascular access site complication rate. A single episode of left atrial perforation occurred during TH use. No patient required emergent CABG and no in-hospital deaths occurred. The 30-day MACE rate (death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization) was 5.8%. There were no differences between the IR2.5 and TH groups with respect to short- or long-term clinical outcomes. Conclusions: The IR2.5 and TH assist devices are safe, equally effective, and associated with acceptable short- and long-term clinical outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk PCI. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:E28 / E37
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Clinical and Economic Effectiveness of Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices for High-Risk Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
    Shah, Atman P.
    Retzer, Elizabeth M.
    Nathan, Sandeep
    Paul, Jonathan D.
    Friant, Janet
    Dill, Karin E.
    Thomas, Joseph L.
    JOURNAL OF INVASIVE CARDIOLOGY, 2015, 27 (03): : 148 - 154
  • [2] Percutaneous left ventricular assist device: "TandemHeart" for high-risk coronary intervention
    Aragon, J
    Lee, MS
    Kar, S
    Makkar, RR
    CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2005, 65 (03) : 346 - 352
  • [3] Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention
    Engstrom, Annemarie E.
    Piek, Jan J.
    Henriques, Jose P. S.
    EXPERT REVIEW OF CARDIOVASCULAR THERAPY, 2010, 8 (09) : 1247 - 1255
  • [4] Use of the Impella 2.5 in High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
    McCulloch, Brenda
    CRITICAL CARE NURSE, 2011, 31 (01) : E1 - E16
  • [5] Percutaneous left ventricular assist device with TandemHeart for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: The Mayo Clinic experience
    Alli, Oluseun O.
    Singh, Inder M.
    Holmes, David R., Jr.
    Pulido, Juan N.
    Park, Soon J.
    Rihal, Charanjit S.
    CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2012, 80 (05) : 728 - 734
  • [6] Safety and feasibility of elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention procedures with left ventricular support of the Impella Recover LP 2.5
    Henriques, Jose P. S.
    Sjauw, Krischan D.
    Remmelink, Maurice
    Baon, Jan, Jr.
    van der Schaaf, Rene J.
    Vis, Marije M.
    Koch, Karel T.
    Tijssen, Jan G. P.
    Piek, Jan J.
    de Winter, Robbert J.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2006, 98 (8A): : 88M - 88M
  • [7] High-risk left main coronary stenting supported by percutaneous Impella Recover LP 2.5 assist device
    Cohen, R.
    Foucher, R.
    Sfaxi, A.
    Hakim, M.
    Domniez, T.
    Elhadad, S.
    ANNALES DE CARDIOLOGIE ET D ANGEIOLOGIE, 2010, 59 (01): : 48 - 51
  • [8] Safety and feasibility of elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention procedures with left ventricular support of the Impella Recover LP 2.5
    Henriques, JPS
    Remmelink, M
    Baan, J
    van der Schaaf, RJ
    Vis, MM
    Koch, KT
    Scholten, EW
    de Mol, BAJM
    Tijssen, JGP
    Piek, JJ
    de Winter, RJ
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2006, 97 (07): : 990 - 992
  • [9] Use of Impella Recover LP 2.5 in elective high risk percutaneous coronary intervention
    Luis Ferreiro, Jose
    Antoni Gomez-Hospital, Joan
    Cequier, Angel R.
    Angiolillo, Dominick J.
    Roura, Gerard
    Teruel, Luis
    Maristany, Jaume
    Gomez-Lara, Josep
    Jara, Francesc
    Bass, Theodore A.
    Esplugas, Enric
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2010, 145 (02) : 235 - 237
  • [10] CLINICAL OUTCOMES ASSOCIATED WITH IMPELLA VERSUS IABP USE IN STABLE PATIENTS UNDERGOING HIGH RISK PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION
    Sorrentino, Sabato
    Baber, Usman
    Chandrasekhar, Jaya
    Farhan, Serdar
    Faggioni, Michela
    Vogel, Birgit
    Sartori, Samantha
    Kovacic, Jason
    Moreno, Pedro
    Suleman, Javed
    Vijay, Pooja
    Giustino, Gennaro
    Dangas, George
    Mehran, Roxana
    Kini, Annapoorna
    Sharma, Samin
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2017, 69 (11) : 1117 - 1117