Scholarlink

Introduction <p>High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI) involves patients with complex coronary disease, adverse hemodynamics, and/or severe comorbidities who are often ineligible for surgery. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may reduce procedural risk and facilitate complete revascularization. However, comparative data on outcomes and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery are limited. We hypothesized that the benefits of MCS-supported PCI observed in prior studies would extend to contemporary, real-world, non-protocolized all-comer datasets, where outcomes and LVEF recovery in patients undergoing non-emergent Impella- or intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP)-supported HR-PCI can be evaluated.</p> Methods <p>We synthesized an MCS-specific cohort using de-identified electronic health record data (2017–2025). Adults undergoing non-emergent HR-PCI supported with cardiac unloading via a continuous, forward high-flow pump (Impella) or IABP were included. Admissions with emergent status, right heart failure, cardiogenic shock, or ST-elevation myocardial infarction, or those undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, were excluded. Propensity score matching (1:1) adjusting for baseline differences was performed. Outcomes included all-cause mortality (7, 30, and 90&#xa0;days) and 30-day, medical code-derived (cd) adverse events (acute kidney injury [cd-AKI] and cd-bleeding requiring transfusion). LVEF change within 1&#xa0;year was assessed in a predefined subgroup.</p> Results <p>Before matching, patients supported with Impella had more comorbidities, lower baseline LVEF, and more complex procedural characteristics than IABP-supported patients. After matching, baseline characteristics were balanced. Impella was associated with lower all-cause mortality at 30&#xa0;days (12.7% vs. 16.6%) and 90&#xa0;days (15.2% vs. 19.6%), and reduced cd-AKI (15.7% vs. 20.3%). In patients matched for baseline LVEF values and collection timing, both groups demonstrated LVEF improvement (+ 7% for Impella; + 3% for IABP).</p> Conclusion <p>In contemporary, non-protocolized, non-emergent HR-PCI, the use of Impella was associated with improved outcomes and greater LVEF recovery compared to IABP.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Impella vs. IABP in Non-emergent High-Risk PCI: Outcomes and LVEF Recovery from a Large US EHR Study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月13日

查看全文
  • Jason R. Wollmuth,
  • Aditya S. Bharadwaj,
  • Nudrat Noor,
  • Ali Almedhychy,
  • William O’Neill

摘要

Introduction

High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI) involves patients with complex coronary disease, adverse hemodynamics, and/or severe comorbidities who are often ineligible for surgery. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may reduce procedural risk and facilitate complete revascularization. However, comparative data on outcomes and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery are limited. We hypothesized that the benefits of MCS-supported PCI observed in prior studies would extend to contemporary, real-world, non-protocolized all-comer datasets, where outcomes and LVEF recovery in patients undergoing non-emergent Impella- or intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP)-supported HR-PCI can be evaluated.

Methods

We synthesized an MCS-specific cohort using de-identified electronic health record data (2017–2025). Adults undergoing non-emergent HR-PCI supported with cardiac unloading via a continuous, forward high-flow pump (Impella) or IABP were included. Admissions with emergent status, right heart failure, cardiogenic shock, or ST-elevation myocardial infarction, or those undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, were excluded. Propensity score matching (1:1) adjusting for baseline differences was performed. Outcomes included all-cause mortality (7, 30, and 90 days) and 30-day, medical code-derived (cd) adverse events (acute kidney injury [cd-AKI] and cd-bleeding requiring transfusion). LVEF change within 1 year was assessed in a predefined subgroup.

Results

Before matching, patients supported with Impella had more comorbidities, lower baseline LVEF, and more complex procedural characteristics than IABP-supported patients. After matching, baseline characteristics were balanced. Impella was associated with lower all-cause mortality at 30 days (12.7% vs. 16.6%) and 90 days (15.2% vs. 19.6%), and reduced cd-AKI (15.7% vs. 20.3%). In patients matched for baseline LVEF values and collection timing, both groups demonstrated LVEF improvement (+ 7% for Impella; + 3% for IABP).

Conclusion

In contemporary, non-protocolized, non-emergent HR-PCI, the use of Impella was associated with improved outcomes and greater LVEF recovery compared to IABP.