Evaluating the learning curve in the prospective Randomized Clinical Trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: A prespecified subanalysis of the PROTECT II study

American Heart Journal

Volumn 167, Issue 4, 2014, Pages

  Henriques, José P S ^a   Ouweneel, Dagmar M ^a   Naidu, Srihari S ^b   Palacios, Igor F ^c   Popma, Jeffrey ^d   Ohman, E Magnus ^e   O'Neill, William W ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b WINTHROP UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^f HENRY FORD HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; BLOOD PUMP; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEART CATHETERIZATION; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE EJECTION FRACTION; HEART MUSCLE OXYGEN CONSUMPTION; HEMODYNAMICS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRAAORTIC BALLOON PUMP; LEARNING CURVE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PULMONARY ARTERY OCCLUSION PRESSURE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK FACTOR;

AGED; CARDIAC CATHETERIZATION; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEMODYNAMICS; HUMANS; INTRA-AORTIC BALLOON PUMPING; LEARNING CURVE; MALE; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84897069178     PISSN: 00028703     EISSN: 10976744     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.12.018     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. R. Ahmadi, A. Willfort, and W. Lang et al. Carotid artery stenting: effect of learning curve and intermediate-term morphological outcome J Endovasc Ther 8 2001 539 546
2. W.A. Lee, Y.G. Wolf, and B.B. Hill et al. The first 150 endovascular AAA repairs at a single institution: how steep is the learning curve? J Endovasc Ther 9 2002 269 276
3. F.S. Resnic, T.Y. Wang, and N. Arora et al. Quantifying the learning curve in the use of a novel vascular closure device: an analysis of the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) CathPCI registry JACC Cardiovasc Interv 5 1 2012 82 89
4. D. Burkhoff, H. Cohen, and C. Brunckhorst et al. A randomized multicenter clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device versus conventional therapy with intraaortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock Am Heart J 152 2006 469 480
5. C.E. Chen, S.S. Dhruva, and L.A. Bero et al. Inclusion of training patients in US Food and Drug Administration premarket approval cardiovascular device studies Arch Intern Med 171 2011 534 539
6. W.W. O'Neill, N.S. Kleiman, and J. Moses et al. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study Circulation 126 2012 1717 1727
7. S.R. Dixon, J.P. Henriques, and L. Mauri et al. A prospective feasibility trial investigating the use of the Impella 2.5 system in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (The PROTECT I Trial): initial U.S. experience JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2 2009 91 96
8. K.D. Sjauw, M. Remmelink, and J. Baan Jr. et al. Left ventricular unloading in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients is safe and feasible and provides acute and sustained left ventricular recovery J Am Coll Cardiol 51 2008 1044 1046
9. M. Valgimigli, P. Steendijk, and G. Sianos et al. Left ventricular unloading and concomitant total cardiac output increase by the use of percutaneous Impella Recover LP 2.5 assist device during high-risk coronary intervention Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 65 2005 263 267
10. M. Remmelink, K.D. Sjauw, and J.P. Henriques et al. Effects of left ventricular unloading by Impella recover LP2.5 on coronary hemodynamics Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 70 2007 532 537
11. E.W. Chen, J.G. Canto, and L.S. Parsons et al. Relation between hospital intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation volume and mortality in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock Circulation 108 2003 951 957
12. J.P. Henriques, M. Remmelink, and J. Baan Jr. et al. Safety and feasibility of elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention procedures with left ventricular support of the Impella Recover LP 2.5 Am J Cardiol 97 2006 990 992
13. K.D. Sjauw, T. Konorza, and R. Erbel et al. Supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device the Europella registry J Am Coll Cardiol 54 2009 2430 2434
14. D. Perera, R. Stables, and M. Thomas et al. Elective intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized controlled trial JAMA 304 2010 867 874
15. B. Maini, S.S. Naidu, and S. Mulukutla et al. Real-world use of the Impella 2.5 circulatory support system in complex high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: The USpella Registry Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 80 5 2012 717 725
16. J.S. Hochman, L.A. Sleeper, and J.G. Webb et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should we emergently revascularize occluded coronaries for cardiogenic shock N Engl J Med 341 1999 625 634