Dataset Information

The Role of Percutaneous Haemodynamic Support in High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Cardiogenic Shock.

ABSTRACT: The experience and usage of percutaneous cardiac assist devices in cardiogenic shock as well as high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention have increased over the years. Nonetheless, there is still little evidence of clinical benefit of these devices other than immediate haemodynamic improvement. Despite the fact that these devices are used to treat a rather complex patient population, clinical testing remains important in order to evaluate their true impact on clinical outcome before being adopted into clinical practice. Therefore, this review shows an overview of the current experience and evidence of the available percutaneous cardiac assist devices.

SUBMITTER: Ouweneel DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5860905 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Role of Percutaneous Haemodynamic Support in High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Cardiogenic Shock.

Ouweneel Dagmar M DM Claessen Bimmer E BE Sjauw Krischan D KD Henriques José Ps JP

Interventional cardiology (London, England) 20150301 1

The experience and usage of percutaneous cardiac assist devices in cardiogenic shock as well as high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention have increased over the years. Nonetheless, there is still little evidence of clinical benefit of these devices other than immediate haemodynamic improvement. Despite the fact that these devices are used to treat a rather complex patient population, clinical testing remains important in order to evaluate their true impact on clinical outcome before being ad ...[more]

PMID: 29588673

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThere are limited contemporary data on the use of initial fibrinolysis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS). This study sought to compare the outcomes of STEMI-CS receiving initial fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).MethodsUsing the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample from 2009 to 2017, a comparative effectiveness study of adult (>18 years) STEMI-CS admissions receiving pre-hospital/in-hospital fibrinolysis were compared with those receiving PPCI. Admissions with alternate indications for fibrinolysis and STEMI-CS managed medically or with surgical revascularization (without fibrinolysis) were excluded. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, development of non-cardiac organ failure, complications, hospital length of stay, hospitalization costs, use of palliative care, and do-not-resuscitate status.ResultsDuring 2009-2017, 5297 and 110 452 admissions received initial fibrinolysis and PPCI, respectively. Compared with those receiving PPCI, the fibrinolysis group was more often non-White, with lower co-morbidity, and admitted on weekends and to small rural hospitals (all P < 0.001). In the fibrinolysis group, 95.3%, 77.4%, and 15.7% received angiography, PCI, and coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively. The fibrinolysis group had higher rates of haemorrhagic complications (13.5% vs. 9.9%; P < 0.001). The fibrinolysis group had comparable all-cause in-hospital mortality [logistic regression analysis: 28.8% vs. 28.5%; propensity-matched analysis: 30.8% vs. 30.3%; adjusted odds ratio 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.90-1.05); P = 0.50]. The fibrinolysis group had comparable rates of acute organ failure, hospital length of stay, rates of palliative care referrals, do-not-resuscitate status use, and lesser hospitalization costs.ConclusionsThe use of initial fibrinolysis had comparable in-hospital mortality than those receiving PPCI in STEMI-CS in the contemporary era in this large national observational study.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To review temporary percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for the treatment of cardiogenic shock, including current evidence, contraindications, complications, and future directions. DATA SOURCES:A MEDLINE search was conducted with MeSH terms: cardiogenic shock, percutaneous mechanical circulatory support, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, and TandemHeart. STUDY SELECTION:Selected publications included randomized controlled trial data and observational studies describing experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. DATA EXTRACTION:Studies were chosen based on strength of association with and relevance to cardiogenic shock. DATA SYNTHESIS:Until recently, there were few options if cardiogenic shock was refractory to vasopressors or intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation. Now, several percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices, including Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA), TandemHeart (CardiacAssist, Pittsburgh, PA), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, are more accessible. Compared with intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella provides greater hemodynamic support but no reduction in mortality. Similarly, TandemHeart improves hemodynamic variables but not survival. Comparative studies have been underpowered for mortality because of small sample size. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation offers the advantage of biventricular circulatory support and oxygenation, but there are significant vascular complications. Comparative studies with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation have not been completed. Despite lack of randomized controlled data, there has been a substantial increase in use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. Several ongoing prospective studies with larger sample sizes may provide answers, and newer devices may become smaller, easier to insert, and more effective. CONCLUSIONS:Mortality from cardiogenic shock remains unacceptably high despite early coronary revascularization or other therapies. Although evidence is lacking and complications rates are high, improvements and experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support may offer the prospect of better outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundPercutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices (pMCSDs) are increasingly used on the assumption (but without solid proof) that their use will improve prognosis. A meta-analysis was undertaken according to the PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the benefits of pMCSDs in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (hr-PCI).MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trial.gov, and other databases to identify eligible studies. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for 30-day and 6-month all-cause mortality rates, reinfarction, and other adverse events using a random effect model.ResultsSixteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this study. In the pooled analysis, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was not associated with a decrease in 30-day and 6-month all-cause mortality (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.61-1.66; RR 0.88 95% CI 0.66-1.17), reinfarction (RR 0.89 95% CI 0.69-1.14), stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) (RR 1.75 95% CI 0.47-6.42), heart failure (HF) (RR 0.54 95% CI 0.11-2.66), repeat revascularization (RR 0.73 95% CI 0.25-2.10), embolization (RR 3.00 95% CI 0.13-71.61), or arrhythmia (RR 2.81 95% CI 0.30-26.11). Compared with IABP, left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) were not associated with a decrease in 30-day and 6-month all-cause mortality (RR 0.96 95% CI 0.71-1.29; RR 1.23 95% CI 0.88-1.72), reinfarction (RR 0.98 95% CI 0.68-1.42), stroke/TIA (RR 0.45 95% CI 0.1-1.95), acute kidney injury (AKI) (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.38-1.80), or arrhythmia (RR 1.52 95% CI 0.71-3.27), but LVADs were associated with a decrease in repeat revascularization (RR 0.26 95% CI 0.08-0.83). However, LVADs significantly increased the risk of bleeding compared with IABP (RR 2.85 95% CI 1.72-4.73).ConclusionsNeither LVADs nor IABP improves short or long-term survival in hr-PCI patients. LVADs are more likely to reduce repeat revascularization after PCI, but to increase the risk of bleeding events than IABP.

Project description:With percutaneous left ventricular mechanical circulatory support devices becoming increasingly available for patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction and the lack of a clear mortality benefit to date, identifying optimal candidates for this technology is crucial. We studied the effectiveness of Impella Cardiac Pow (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) in various stages of cardiogenic shock and elderly cohorts.DesignRetrospective review.SettingData were collected for patients at a single community hospital between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019.SubjectsThirty-one consecutive adult patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction who received Impella Cardiac Pow support. Shock stages were defined by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (Stages A-E).InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsThe primary outcome was in-hospital death across Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention cardiogenic shock stages and in patients greater than or equal to 80 and less than 80 years old. Secondary outcomes were Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 vascular and bleeding complications, stroke, and renal failure requiring dialysis. The median age of the study population was 64 years, with seven patients (23%) being greater than or equal to 80 years old. No patients were in Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention Stage A, whereas there were seven in B, eight in C, six in D, and 10 (32%) in E. Overall in-hospital mortality occurred in 61% of patients. All 10 patients in Stage E died before hospital discharge. Mortality occurred in 54% of patients (13/24) age less than 80 years compared with 86% of those 80 years or older (6/7). A total of 38.7% of patients (12/31) and 32.3% of patients (10/31) experienced Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 bleeding and vascular events, which were evenly distributed across Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention cardiogenic shock Stages.ConclusionsIn conclusion, patients with shock in extremis and those 80 years old and older may have a prohibitively high mortality despite Impella use. These findings merit further prospective investigation in a larger number of patients to evaluate the effectiveness of Impella (and other left ventricular mechanical circulatory devices) and the inherent resource utilization in advanced cardiogenic shock and the elderly.

Dataset Information

The Role of Percutaneous Haemodynamic Support in High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Cardiogenic Shock.

Publications

The Role of Percutaneous Haemodynamic Support in High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Cardiogenic Shock.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets