Gender difference with the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients undergoing complex high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: From pVAD Working Group

被引:5
|
作者
Doshi, Rajkumar [1 ]
Singh, Avneet [1 ]
Jauhar, Rajiv [1 ]
Meraj, Perwaiz M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Zucker Sch Med Hofstra Northwell, North Shore Univ Hosp, Dept Cardiol, Northwell Hlth, Hempstead, NY USA
关键词
High-risk PCI; percutaneous left ventricle assist device; gender disparities; MULTI-VESSEL DISEASE; ELEVATION MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION; BYPASS GRAFT-SURGERY; DRUG-ELUTING STENTS; IMPELLA; 2.5; CARDIOGENIC-SHOCK; INCOMPLETE REVASCULARIZATION; ONLY REVASCULARIZATION; HEMODYNAMIC SUPPORT; ARTERY;
D O I
10.1177/2048872617745790
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: The interventional treatment of complex high-risk indicated patients is technically difficult and can result in poor outcomes. Thus, percutaneous left ventricular assist devices are being increasingly used to provide hemodynamic support. No data is available comparing male and female for Complex High-risk Indicated Patients treated with percutaneous left ventricular assist devices. Our goal was to evaluate in-hospital as well as short term outcomes comparing males and females. Methods: There were 160 complex high-risk indicated patients with percutaneous left ventricular assist device use who were not in cardiogenic shock. A total of 132 male and 28 female patients were included. Ejection fraction below 35% with one additional criterion such as use of atherectomy device or treatment on unprotected left main disease or multi-vessel disease were our inclusion criteria. An Impella 2.5 or Impella CP (Abiomed Inc.) device was used as a left ventricular support device. Results: There was no difference in in-hospital mortality between the genders after performing a propensity score matched analysis (8.3% vs. 12.5%, p=0.54). Secondary outcomes of myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, congestive heart failure, dysrhythmia, major adverse cardiac events and composite of all complications were higher in males. Furthermore, 30-day survival was similar in males and females (88.9% vs. 87.5%, p=0.31). In addition, worse complications rates and survival were noted in patients with incomplete revascularization compared with those patients with complete revascularization in both gender. Conclusion: This study demonstrated no gender difference in clinical outcomes when using percutaneous left ventricular assist device support for the treatment of complex high-risk indicated patients. Overall, males had higher secondary outcomes compared with females with no difference in in-hospital mortality or 30-day survival rates.
引用
收藏
页码:369 / 378
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Gender disparities with the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention complicated by cardiogenic shock: From pVAD Working Group
    Doshi, Rajkumar
    Patel, Krunalkumar
    Decter, Dean
    Jauhar, Rajiv
    Meraj, Perwaiz
    INDIAN HEART JOURNAL, 2018, 70 : S90 - S95
  • [2] Sex-related difference in the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients undergoing complex high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: Insight from the cVAD registry
    Alraies, M. Chadi
    Kaki, Amir
    Kajy, Marvin
    Blank, Nimrod
    Hasan, Reema
    Htun, Wah Wah
    Glazier, James J.
    Elder, Mahir
    O'Neill, William W.
    Grines, Cindy L.
    Schreiber, Theodore
    CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2020, 96 (03) : 536 - 544
  • [3] GENDER DISPARITIES WITH THE USE OF PERCUTANEOUS LEFT VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICE IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION COMPLICATED BY CARDIOGENIC SHOCK: FROM PLVAD WORKING GROUP
    Doshi, Rajkumar
    Shivdasani, Krishin
    Varghese, Shani
    Patel, Krunalkumar
    Singh, Devina
    Singh, Mohit
    Singh, Karanbir
    Vora, Daksh
    Jauhar, Varun
    Goel, Ayush
    Aurora, Tejal
    Siddiqui, Sumaiyah
    Meraj, Perwaiz
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2018, 71 (11) : 1369 - 1369
  • [4] The Use of Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device in High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Cardiogenic Shock
    Akhondi, Andre Babak
    Lee, Michael S.
    REVIEWS IN CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE, 2013, 14 (2-4) : E144 - E149
  • [5] Intravascular Lithotripsy and Microaxial Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device for Complex and High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
    Azzalini, Lorenzo
    Ancona, Marco B.
    Bellini, Barbara
    Chieffo, Alaide
    Carlino, Mauro
    Montorfano, Matteo
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2019, 35 (07) : 940.e5 - 940.e7
  • [6] 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
  • [7] Percutaneous left ventricular assist device in high risk percutaneous coronary intervention
    Kahaly, Omar
    Boudoulas, Konstantinos Dean
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC DISEASE, 2016, 8 (03) : 298 - 302
  • [8] 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
  • [9] Left Ventricular Assist for High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
    Jones, Haile A.
    Kalisetti, Deepika R.
    Gaba, Mahender
    McCormick, Daniel J.
    Goldberg, Sheldon
    JOURNAL OF INVASIVE CARDIOLOGY, 2012, 24 (10): : 544 - 550
  • [10] 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