Outcomes of bailout percutaneous ventricular assist device versus prophylactic strategy in patients undergoing nonemergent percutaneous coronary intervention. Issue 4 (29th May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: O'Neill, Brian P; Grines, Cindy; Moses, Jeffrey W.; Ohman, E. Magnus; Lansky, Alexandra; Popma, Jeffery; Kapur, Navin K.; Schreiber, Theodore; Mannino, Salvatore; O'Neill, William W.; Medjamia, Amin M.; Mahmud, Ehtisham
• Is Part Of: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions. Volume 98:Issue 4(2021)
• Page Start: E501
• Page End: E512
• Publication Date: 2021-05-29
• Subjects: complex PCI -- coronary artery disease -- ECMO/IABP/Tandem/Impella -- mechanical circulatory support -- percutaneous coronary intervention; Heart -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Cardiac catheterization -- Periodicals; 616.1207572
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.29758
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1522-1946

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: To compare in‐hospital outcomes of bailout support to prophylactic support with percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVAD) for high‐risk nonemergent percutaneous coronary intervention (HRPCI). Background: Prophylactic support with pVAD for a HRPCI is used in patients felt to be at risk for hemodynamic collapse during PCI. An alternative strategy of bailout pVAD support in the event of hemodynamic collapse is also entertained. Methods: We compared the outcomes of patients entered in the cVAD database who underwent Impella Protected PCI (ProPCI group) with patients from the cVAD and USpella databases receiving bailout Impella support for hemodynamic collapse during HRPCI (Bailout group). Results: A total of 1, 028 patients supported with Impella pVAD were entered into the cVAD database as of July 2019 and were included in this analysis. Of those 971 were in the ProPCI group and 57 in the Bailout group. Patients in the Bailout group were more often female (50.9%vs. 27.2%, p = .0002) with higher median baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (40%vs. 30%, p < .0001) and with lower prevalence of both heart failure (42.1%vs. 56.9%, p = .0385) and left main disease (40.0%vs. 56.1%, p = .0250) compared to the ProPCI group. Unadjusted and adjusted in‐hospital mortality was significantly higher in the Bailout group (49.1%vs. 4.3%, and 57.8%vs. 4.4%, p < .0001 for both). Conclusions: In our study population, the bailout group was associated with significant increased mortality compared to ProPCI group. Female gender was more frequently observed in patients requiring bailout pVAD. Further investigation is warranted in order to generalize the findings of our study.