Long-Term Outcomes of Extent of Revascularization in Complex High Risk and Indicated Patients Undergoing Impella-Protected Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Report from the Roma-Verona Registry

Objective To investigate the effect of extent of revascularization in complex high-risk indicated patients (CHIP) undergoing Impella-protected percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background Complete revascularization has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes. However, the impact of more complete revascularization during Impella-protected PCI in CHIP has not been reported. Methods A total of 86 CHIP undergoing elective PCI with Impella 2.5 or Impella CP between April 2007 and December 2016 from 2 high volume Italian centers were included. Baseline, procedural, and clinical outcomes data were collected retrospectively. Completeness of coronary revascularization was assessed using the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society myocardial jeopardy score (BCIS-JS) derived revascularization index (RI). The primary end-point was all-cause mortality. A multivariate regression model was used to identify independent predictors of mortality. Results All patients had multivessel disease and were considered unsuitable for surgery. At baseline, 44% had left main disease, 78% had LVEF ≤ 35%, and mean BCIS-JS score was 10±2. The mean BCIS-JS derived RI was 0.7±0.2 and procedural complications were uncommon. At 14-month follow-up, all-cause mortality was 10.5%. At follow-up, 67.4% of CHIP had LVEF ≥ 35% compared to 22.1% before Impella protected-PCI. Higher BCIS-JS RI was significantly associated with LVEF improvement (p=0.002). BCIS-JS RI of ≤ 0.8 (HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01- 0.92, and p = 0.042) was an independent predictor of mortality. Conclusions These results support the practice of percutaneous Impella use for protected PCI in CHIP. A more complete revascularization was associated with significant LVEF improvement and survival.

[1]  M. Borggrefe,et al.  Comparison of peri and post-procedural complications in patients undergoing revascularisation of coronary artery multivessel disease by coronary artery bypass grafting or protected percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device , 2019, European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care.

[2]  F. Burzotta,et al.  Angio-Guidewire-Ultrasound (AGU) Guidance for Femoral Access in Procedures Requiring Large Sheaths. , 2019, The Journal of invasive cardiology.

[3]  F. Burzotta,et al.  Hemodynamics and its predictors during Impella-protected PCI in high risk patients with reduced ejection fraction. , 2019, International journal of cardiology.

[4]  G. Dangas,et al.  Complete Revascularization During Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Reduces Death and Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Multivessel Disease: Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression of Randomized Trials. , 2018, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[5]  F. Burzotta,et al.  Impella: pumps overview and access site management. , 2018, Minerva cardioangiologica.

[6]  F. Ribichini,et al.  Impella-protected PCI: the clinical results achieved so far. , 2018, Minerva cardioangiologica.

[7]  F. Burzotta,et al.  Definitions and clinical impact of revascularization completeness. , 2018, Minerva cardioangiologica.

[8]  D. Westermann,et al.  Indication and short-term clinical outcomes of high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with microaxial Impella® pump: results from the German Impella® registry , 2018, Clinical Research in Cardiology.

[9]  C. Grines,et al.  Real‐world supported unprotected left main percutaneous coronary intervention with impella device; data from the USpella registry , 2017, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[10]  I. Palacios,et al.  Treatment of Higher-Risk Patients With an Indication for Revascularization: Evolution Within the Field of Contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , 2016, Circulation.

[11]  F. Burzotta,et al.  Impella ventricular support in clinical practice: Collaborative viewpoint from a European expert user group. , 2015, International journal of cardiology.

[12]  Victor Mor-Avi,et al.  Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. , 2015, European heart journal cardiovascular Imaging.

[13]  Samin K. Sharma,et al.  Patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease and impaired ventricular function undergoing PCI with Impella 2.5 hemodynamic support have improved 90-day outcomes compared to intra-aortic balloon pump: a sub-study of the PROTECT II trial. , 2015, Journal of interventional cardiology.

[14]  Victor Mor-Avi,et al.  Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. , 2015, Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography : official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography.

[15]  T. Sundt,et al.  Surgical Ineligibility and Mortality Among Patients With Unprotected Left Main or Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , 2014, Circulation.

[16]  F. Burzotta,et al.  Percutaneous management of vascular access in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. , 2014, World journal of cardiology.

[17]  Samin K. Sharma,et al.  Impact of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump on prognostically important clinical outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (from the PROTECT II randomized trial). , 2014, The American journal of cardiology.

[18]  D. Perera,et al.  Prognostic utility of BCIS myocardial jeopardy score for classification of coronary disease burden and completeness of revascularization. , 2013, The American journal of cardiology.

[19]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  Third universal definition of myocardial infarction , 2013, Nature Reviews Cardiology.

[20]  W. O’Neill,et al.  Real‐world use of the Impella 2.5 circulatory support system in complex high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention: The USpella Registry , 2012, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[21]  I. Palacios,et al.  A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Hemodynamic Support With Impella 2.5 Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Patients Undergoing High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The PROTECT II Study , 2012, Circulation.

[22]  P. Serruys,et al.  Quantification and impact of untreated coronary artery disease after percutaneous coronary intervention: the residual SYNTAX (Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[23]  Maarten L. Simoons,et al.  The third universal definition of myocardial infarction , 2013 .

[24]  Laura Mauri,et al.  2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. , 2011, Circulation.

[25]  G. Levine,et al.  2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. , 2011, Circulation.

[26]  Marco Valgimigli,et al.  Standardized Bleeding Definitions for Cardiovascular Clinical Trials: A Consensus Report From the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium , 2011, Circulation.

[27]  P. Serruys,et al.  Standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation clinical trials: a consensus report from the Valve Academic Research Consortium , 2010, European heart journal.

[28]  Volkmar Falk,et al.  Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularization the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (esc) and the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery (eacts) Developed with the Special Contribution of the European Association for Percutaneous Cardiovascular I , 2022 .

[29]  D. Wagner,et al.  Supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device the Europella registry. , 2009, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[30]  R. Stables,et al.  The balloon pump-assisted coronary intervention study (BCIS-1): rationale and design. , 2009, American heart journal.

[31]  Biswajit Kar,et al.  A prospective feasibility trial investigating the use of the Impella 2.5 system in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (The PROTECT I Trial): initial U.S. experience. , 2009, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[32]  A. M. Leone,et al.  Feasibility and long-term safety of elective Impella-assisted high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: a pilot two-centre study , 2008, Journal of cardiovascular medicine.