Percutaneous left ventricular support for high-risk PCI and cardiogenic shock: Who gets what?

Roshni Shah, Alexcis Thomson, Kimberly Atianzar, Keith Somma, Anilkumar Mehra, Leonardo Clavijo, Ray V. Matthews, David M. Shavelle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Temporary use of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device (PLVAD) may be beneficial in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and those with cardiogenic shock (CS). Methods: Seventy-four consecutive patients undergoing high-risk PCI and those with CS receiving intraaortic balloon pump (IABP), TandemHeart (TH), or Impella device (IMP) were enrolled. Patient undergoing high-risk PCI (. n=57) and those treated for CS (. n=17) were analyzed as separate cohorts. Patients undergoing IABP-assisted PCI were compared to those undergoing PLVAD (TH and IMP)-assisted PCI. The primary end point was in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events, and the secondary end point was in-hospital vascular complications. Results: For the high-risk PCI cohort (. n=57), 22 received PLVAD and 35 received IABP. Patients receiving IABP were younger and less likely to have a prior myocardial infarction (MI) and less likely to be on dialysis compared to those receiving PLVAD support. Patients receiving PLVAD support had a higher baseline Syntax score, had a higher prevalence of unprotected left main disease, underwent treatment of more coronary lesions, received more coronary stents, and more likely received drug-eluting stents compared to those receiving IABP support. The primary and secondary end points were similar between both groups. For the CS cohort (. n=17), 4 received PLVAD and 13 received IABP. Patients receiving PLVAD support were more likely to have a prior MI, had a lower ejection fraction, underwent treatment of more coronary lesions, and received more coronary stents compared to those receiving IABP support. The primary and secondary end points were similar between both groups. Conclusions: IABP compared with PLVAD use for high-risk PCI and CS is associated with significantly different baseline patient, clinical, procedural, and angiographic characteristics. In-hospital clinical outcome was similar between both groups in both the high-risk PCI and the CS cohorts. When physicians have access to each of these devices, short-term clinical outcome appears to be similar.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)101-105
Number of pages5
JournalCardiovascular Revascularization Medicine
Volume13
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2012

Fingerprint

Heart-Assist Devices
Cardiogenic Shock
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Equipment and Supplies
Stents
Myocardial Infarction
Drug-Eluting Stents
Blood Vessels
Dialysis
Physicians
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Cardiogenic shock
  • High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention
  • Intraaortic balloon pump
  • Left ventricular support

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Percutaneous left ventricular support for high-risk PCI and cardiogenic shock : Who gets what? / Shah, Roshni; Thomson, Alexcis; Atianzar, Kimberly; Somma, Keith; Mehra, Anilkumar; Clavijo, Leonardo; Matthews, Ray V.; Shavelle, David M.

In: Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine, Vol. 13, No. 2, 01.03.2012, p. 101-105.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Shah, Roshni ; Thomson, Alexcis ; Atianzar, Kimberly ; Somma, Keith ; Mehra, Anilkumar ; Clavijo, Leonardo ; Matthews, Ray V. ; Shavelle, David M. / Percutaneous left ventricular support for high-risk PCI and cardiogenic shock : Who gets what?. In: Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine. 2012 ; Vol. 13, No. 2. pp. 101-105.
@article{64453a9da1f7475e8260fe1ebe4e0b83,
title = "Percutaneous left ventricular support for high-risk PCI and cardiogenic shock: Who gets what?",
abstract = "Background: Temporary use of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device (PLVAD) may be beneficial in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and those with cardiogenic shock (CS). Methods: Seventy-four consecutive patients undergoing high-risk PCI and those with CS receiving intraaortic balloon pump (IABP), TandemHeart (TH), or Impella device (IMP) were enrolled. Patient undergoing high-risk PCI (. n=57) and those treated for CS (. n=17) were analyzed as separate cohorts. Patients undergoing IABP-assisted PCI were compared to those undergoing PLVAD (TH and IMP)-assisted PCI. The primary end point was in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events, and the secondary end point was in-hospital vascular complications. Results: For the high-risk PCI cohort (. n=57), 22 received PLVAD and 35 received IABP. Patients receiving IABP were younger and less likely to have a prior myocardial infarction (MI) and less likely to be on dialysis compared to those receiving PLVAD support. Patients receiving PLVAD support had a higher baseline Syntax score, had a higher prevalence of unprotected left main disease, underwent treatment of more coronary lesions, received more coronary stents, and more likely received drug-eluting stents compared to those receiving IABP support. The primary and secondary end points were similar between both groups. For the CS cohort (. n=17), 4 received PLVAD and 13 received IABP. Patients receiving PLVAD support were more likely to have a prior MI, had a lower ejection fraction, underwent treatment of more coronary lesions, and received more coronary stents compared to those receiving IABP support. The primary and secondary end points were similar between both groups. Conclusions: IABP compared with PLVAD use for high-risk PCI and CS is associated with significantly different baseline patient, clinical, procedural, and angiographic characteristics. In-hospital clinical outcome was similar between both groups in both the high-risk PCI and the CS cohorts. When physicians have access to each of these devices, short-term clinical outcome appears to be similar.",
keywords = "Cardiogenic shock, High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention, Intraaortic balloon pump, Left ventricular support",
author = "Roshni Shah and Alexcis Thomson and Kimberly Atianzar and Keith Somma and Anilkumar Mehra and Leonardo Clavijo and Matthews, {Ray V.} and Shavelle, {David M.}",
year = "2012",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.carrev.2012.01.003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "101--105",
journal = "Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine",
issn = "1553-8389",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Percutaneous left ventricular support for high-risk PCI and cardiogenic shock

T2 - Who gets what?

AU - Shah, Roshni

AU - Thomson, Alexcis

AU - Atianzar, Kimberly

AU - Somma, Keith

AU - Mehra, Anilkumar

AU - Clavijo, Leonardo

AU - Matthews, Ray V.

AU - Shavelle, David M.

PY - 2012/3/1

Y1 - 2012/3/1

N2 - Background: Temporary use of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device (PLVAD) may be beneficial in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and those with cardiogenic shock (CS). Methods: Seventy-four consecutive patients undergoing high-risk PCI and those with CS receiving intraaortic balloon pump (IABP), TandemHeart (TH), or Impella device (IMP) were enrolled. Patient undergoing high-risk PCI (. n=57) and those treated for CS (. n=17) were analyzed as separate cohorts. Patients undergoing IABP-assisted PCI were compared to those undergoing PLVAD (TH and IMP)-assisted PCI. The primary end point was in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events, and the secondary end point was in-hospital vascular complications. Results: For the high-risk PCI cohort (. n=57), 22 received PLVAD and 35 received IABP. Patients receiving IABP were younger and less likely to have a prior myocardial infarction (MI) and less likely to be on dialysis compared to those receiving PLVAD support. Patients receiving PLVAD support had a higher baseline Syntax score, had a higher prevalence of unprotected left main disease, underwent treatment of more coronary lesions, received more coronary stents, and more likely received drug-eluting stents compared to those receiving IABP support. The primary and secondary end points were similar between both groups. For the CS cohort (. n=17), 4 received PLVAD and 13 received IABP. Patients receiving PLVAD support were more likely to have a prior MI, had a lower ejection fraction, underwent treatment of more coronary lesions, and received more coronary stents compared to those receiving IABP support. The primary and secondary end points were similar between both groups. Conclusions: IABP compared with PLVAD use for high-risk PCI and CS is associated with significantly different baseline patient, clinical, procedural, and angiographic characteristics. In-hospital clinical outcome was similar between both groups in both the high-risk PCI and the CS cohorts. When physicians have access to each of these devices, short-term clinical outcome appears to be similar.

AB - Background: Temporary use of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device (PLVAD) may be beneficial in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and those with cardiogenic shock (CS). Methods: Seventy-four consecutive patients undergoing high-risk PCI and those with CS receiving intraaortic balloon pump (IABP), TandemHeart (TH), or Impella device (IMP) were enrolled. Patient undergoing high-risk PCI (. n=57) and those treated for CS (. n=17) were analyzed as separate cohorts. Patients undergoing IABP-assisted PCI were compared to those undergoing PLVAD (TH and IMP)-assisted PCI. The primary end point was in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events, and the secondary end point was in-hospital vascular complications. Results: For the high-risk PCI cohort (. n=57), 22 received PLVAD and 35 received IABP. Patients receiving IABP were younger and less likely to have a prior myocardial infarction (MI) and less likely to be on dialysis compared to those receiving PLVAD support. Patients receiving PLVAD support had a higher baseline Syntax score, had a higher prevalence of unprotected left main disease, underwent treatment of more coronary lesions, received more coronary stents, and more likely received drug-eluting stents compared to those receiving IABP support. The primary and secondary end points were similar between both groups. For the CS cohort (. n=17), 4 received PLVAD and 13 received IABP. Patients receiving PLVAD support were more likely to have a prior MI, had a lower ejection fraction, underwent treatment of more coronary lesions, and received more coronary stents compared to those receiving IABP support. The primary and secondary end points were similar between both groups. Conclusions: IABP compared with PLVAD use for high-risk PCI and CS is associated with significantly different baseline patient, clinical, procedural, and angiographic characteristics. In-hospital clinical outcome was similar between both groups in both the high-risk PCI and the CS cohorts. When physicians have access to each of these devices, short-term clinical outcome appears to be similar.

KW - Cardiogenic shock

KW - High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention

KW - Intraaortic balloon pump

KW - Left ventricular support

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84859637298&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84859637298&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.carrev.2012.01.003

DO - 10.1016/j.carrev.2012.01.003

M3 - Article

C2 - 22406055

AN - SCOPUS:84859637298

VL - 13

SP - 101

EP - 105

JO - Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine

JF - Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine

SN - 1553-8389

IS - 2

ER -