Indication and short-term clinical outcomes of high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with microaxial Impella® pump: results from the German Impella® registry

Clinical Research in Cardiology

Volumn 107, Issue 8, 2018, Pages 653-657

  Baumann, Stefan ^a,b   Werner, Nikos ^c   Ibrahim, Karim ^d   Westenfeld, Ralf ^e   Al Rashid, Fadi ^f   Sinning, Jan Malte ^c   Westermann, Dirk ^g   Schäfer, Andreas ^h   Karatolios, Konstantinos ⁱ   Bauer, Timm ^j   Becher, Tobias ^a,b   Akin, Ibrahim ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^b DZHK GERMAN CENTRE FOR CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCH   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL CARL GUSTAV CARUS   (Germany)

^e Department of Orthopedic Surgery   (Germany)

^f UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ESSEN   (Germany)

^g UNIVERSITY HEART CENTER HAMBURG   (Germany)

^h HANNOVER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Germany)

ⁱ PHILIPPS UNIVERSITY MARBURG   (Germany)

^j UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL GIESSEN   (Germany)

more..

Author keywords

Heart assist device; Hemodynamics; High risk PCI; Impella; Mechanical support

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM; HYPERTENSIVE FACTOR;

AGED; AORTIC DISSECTION; ARTICLE; BLEEDING; CLINICAL OUTCOME; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT; DEVICE MIGRATION; ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; ESTIMATED GLOMERULAR FILTRATION RATE; EUROSCORE; FALSE ANEURYSM; FEMALE; FLUOROSCOPY; HEART LEFT BUNDLE BRANCH BLOCK; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE EJECTION FRACTION; HEMODYNAMICS; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HOSPITAL MORTALITY; HUMAN; KIDNEY FAILURE; MAJOR ADVERSE CARDIAC EVENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OPERATION DURATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PROPHYLAXIS; RESUSCITATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SHEATH REMOVAL; SURGICAL RISK; SYNTAX SCORE; THROMBOEMBOLISM; CLINICAL TRIAL; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; GERMANY; HEART ASSIST DEVICE; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE FUNCTION; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; REGISTER;

AGED; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; FEMALE; GERMANY; HEART-ASSIST DEVICES; HUMANS; MALE; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; REGISTRIES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; VENTRICULAR FUNCTION, LEFT;

EID: 85043397186     PISSN: 18610684     EISSN: 18610692     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00392-018-1230-6     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Farooq V, van Klaveren D, Steyerberg EW et al (2013) Anatomical and clinical characteristics to guide decision making between coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for individual patients: development and validation of SYNTAX score II. Lancet 381(9867):639–650
2. Dangas GD, Kini AS, Sharma SK et al (2014) Impact of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump on prognostically important clinical outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (from the PROTECT II randomized trial). Am J Cardiol 113(2):222–228
3. Ferrari M, Kruzliak P, Spiliopoulos K (2015) An insight into short- and long-term mechanical circulatory support systems. Clin Res Cardiol 104(2):95–111
4. Burzotta F, Trani C, Doshi SN et al (2015) Impella ventricular support in clinical practice: collaborative viewpoint from a European expert user group. Int J Cardiol 201:684–691
5. Sauren LD, Accord RE, Hamzeh K et al (2007) Combined Impella and intra-aortic balloon pump support to improve both ventricular unloading and coronary blood flow for myocardial recovery: an experimental study. Artif Organs 31(11):839–842
6. Authors/TaskFm, Windecker S, Kolh P, et al. (2014) 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the task force on myocardial revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J 35(37):2541–2619
7. Sinning JM, Asdonk T, Erlhofer C et al (2013) Combination of angiographic and clinical characteristics for the prediction of clinical outcomes in elderly patients undergoing multivessel PCI. Clin Res Cardiol 102(12):865–873
8. Bonzel T, Schachinger V, Dorge H (2016) Description of a heart team approach to coronary revascularization and its beneficial long-term effect on clinical events after PCI. Clin Res Cardiol 105(5):388–400
9. O’Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J et al (2012) 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(14):1717–1727
10. Flaherty MP, Pant S, Patel SV et al (2017) Hemodynamic support with a microaxial percutaneous left ventricular assist device (Impella) protects against acute kidney injury in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Circ Res 120(4):692–700
11. Becher T, Baumann S, Eder F et al. Comparison of peri and post-procedural complications in patients undergoing revascularisation of coronary artery multivessel disease by coronary artery bypass grafting or protected percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2017:2048872617717687
12. Ait Ichou J, Larivée N, Eisenberg MJ, Suissa K, Filion K (2017) The effectiveness and safety of the Impella ventricular assist device for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions: a systematic review. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 10.1002/ccd.27316
13. Kovacic JC, Nguyen HT, Karajgikar R, Sharma SK, Kini AS (2013) 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. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 82(1):E28–E37
14. Venugopal V, Spiro J, Zaphiriou A et al (2015) Percutaneous mechanical ventricular support in acute cardiac care: a UK quaternary centre experience using 2.5L, 3.8L and 5.0L Impella catheters. Cardiol Ther 4(1):47–58
15. Briasoulis A, Telila T, Palla M et al (2016) Meta-analysis of usefulness of percutaneous left ventricular assist devices for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions. Am J Cardiol 118(3):369–375