The Role of Mechanical Circulatory Support During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients Without Severely Depressed Left Ventricular Function

The Role of Mechanical Circulatory Support During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients... Currently, there are no data on the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients without severely depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We analyzed data from the global catheter-based ventricular assist device (cVAD) registry on the clinical use of MCS in high-risk PCI in patients without severely depressed LVEF, defined as LVEF > 35%. Patients without cardiogenic shock from the catheter-based ventricular assist device registry, who underwent elective or urgent PCI with an Impella 2.5 or Impella CP, were included. Patients who received MCS after the start of the PCI were excluded. A total of 891 patients were included, of whom 661 had LVEF ≤ 35% and 230 had LVEF > 35%. Patients with LVEF > 35% compared with patients with LVEF ≤ 35% were older (72.12 ± 11.70 years vs 68.68 ± 11.01 years; p <0.001), had more extensive coronary artery disease with more diseased vessels (1.90 ± 0.71 vs 1.73 ± 0.79; p = 0.005), more multivessel intervention (1.74 ± 0.69 vs 1.55 ± 0.73; p <0.001), and more use of rotational atherectomy (21.21% vs 14.90%; p = 0.046), respectively. Additionally, they had a high prevalence of high-risk clinical features such as renal failure (24.89%) and diabetes mellitus (45.37%). Despite these high-risk features, the major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral event rates were favorable overall, with no differences between the 2 groups (3.48% vs 4.54%; p = 0.574). Despite having LVEF > 35%, this selected group of patients had severe co-morbidities and complex angiographic features; hence, PCI with hemodynamic support was deemed necessary. In addition, PCI with elective MCS was feasible and safe in this patient population. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The American Journal of Cardiology Elsevier

The Role of Mechanical Circulatory Support During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients Without Severely Depressed Left Ventricular Function

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/the-role-of-mechanical-circulatory-support-during-percutaneous-y3kR6Qz8PC
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc.
ISSN
0002-9149
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.11.045
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Currently, there are no data on the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients without severely depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We analyzed data from the global catheter-based ventricular assist device (cVAD) registry on the clinical use of MCS in high-risk PCI in patients without severely depressed LVEF, defined as LVEF > 35%. Patients without cardiogenic shock from the catheter-based ventricular assist device registry, who underwent elective or urgent PCI with an Impella 2.5 or Impella CP, were included. Patients who received MCS after the start of the PCI were excluded. A total of 891 patients were included, of whom 661 had LVEF ≤ 35% and 230 had LVEF > 35%. Patients with LVEF > 35% compared with patients with LVEF ≤ 35% were older (72.12 ± 11.70 years vs 68.68 ± 11.01 years; p <0.001), had more extensive coronary artery disease with more diseased vessels (1.90 ± 0.71 vs 1.73 ± 0.79; p = 0.005), more multivessel intervention (1.74 ± 0.69 vs 1.55 ± 0.73; p <0.001), and more use of rotational atherectomy (21.21% vs 14.90%; p = 0.046), respectively. Additionally, they had a high prevalence of high-risk clinical features such as renal failure (24.89%) and diabetes mellitus (45.37%). Despite these high-risk features, the major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral event rates were favorable overall, with no differences between the 2 groups (3.48% vs 4.54%; p = 0.574). Despite having LVEF > 35%, this selected group of patients had severe co-morbidities and complex angiographic features; hence, PCI with hemodynamic support was deemed necessary. In addition, PCI with elective MCS was feasible and safe in this patient population.

Journal

The American Journal of CardiologyElsevier

Published: Mar 15, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off