Prophylactic Impella CP versus VA-ECMO in Patients Undergoing Complex High-Risk Indicated PCI.

Objectives: To compare two different forms of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with complex high-risk indicated PCI (CHIP): the Impella CP system and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). Background: To prevent hemodynamic instability in CHIP, various MCS systems are available. However, comparable data on different forms of MCS are not at hand. Methods: In this multicenter observational study, we retrospectively evaluated all CHIP procedures with the support of an Impella CP or VA-ECMO, who were declined surgery by the heart team. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), mortality at discharge, and 30-day mortality were evaluated. Results: A total of 41 patients were included, of which 27 patients were supported with Impella CP and 14 patients with VA-ECMO. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced in both groups. No significant difference in periprocedural hemodynamic instability was observed between both groups (3.7% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.22). The composite outcome of MACE showed no significant difference (30.7% vs. 21.4%; p = 0.59). Bleeding complications were higher in the Impella CP group, but showed no significant difference (22.2% vs. 7.1%; p = 0.22) and occurred more at the non-Impella access site. In-hospital mortality was 7.4% in the Impella CP group versus 14.3% in the VA-ECMO group and showed no significant difference (p = 0.48). 30-Day mortality showed no significant difference (7.4% vs. 21.4%; p = 0.09). Conclusions: In patients with CHIP, there were no significant differences in hemodynamic instability and overall MACE between VA-ECMO or Impella CP device as mechanical circulatory support. Based on this study, the choice of either VA-ECMO or Impella CP does not alter the outcome.

Complex High-Risk Indicated Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Prophylactic Use of the Impella CP Ventricular Assist Device.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with complex coronary artery disease, concomitant cardiac disease, and multiple comorbidities are addressed as complex higher-risk indicated patients (CHIPs). Selecting a revascularization strategy in this population remains challenging. If coronary artery bypass grafting is deemed high risk or patients are considered inoperable, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the support of the Impella CP ventricular assist device (Abiomed) may be an attractive alternative. METHODS: In this retrospective, multicenter study, we included consecutive patients undergoing Impella CP-facilitated complex high-risk PCI. All patients were discussed by the heart team and were declined for surgery. Additionally, periprocedural mechanical circulatory support was deemed necessary. We collected demographic, clinical, and procedural characteristics. Major adverse cardiac event (MACE) and mortality rates up to 30 days were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 27 patients (median age, 73 ± 9.7 years; 74.1% men) were included in our study. The median SYNTAX score was 32 (range, 8-57) and EuroSCORE was 7.25% (range, 1.33-49.66; ± 12.76%). Periprocedural hemodynamic instability was observed in 1 patient (3.7%). In-hospital combined with 30-day mortality was 7.4% (2/27). No repeat revascularization was necessary. MACE was observed in 10 patients (37.0%). Six patients (22.2%) had a major bleeding complication, of which 2 were related to Impella access site. Median Impella run time was 1.22 hours and there was no significant decrease in kidney function. Median admission time after PCI was 3 days (range, 1-23; ± 4.76). CONCLUSIONS: The Impella CP system showed good feasibility and provided adequate hemodynamic support during high-risk PCI in this CHIP population.

Advances in the Post-coronary Artery Bypass Graft Management of Occlusive Coronary Artery Disease.

Revascularisation of chronic total occlusion (CTO) represents one of the most challenging aspects of percutaneous coronary intervention, but advances in equipment and an understanding of CTO revascularisation techniques have resulted in considerable improvements in success rates. In patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, additional challenges are encountered. This article specifically explores these challenges, as well as antegrade methods of CTO crossing. Techniques, equipment that can be used and reference texts are highlighted with the aim of providing potential CTO operators adequate information to tackle additional complexities likely to be encountered in this cohort of patients. This review forms part of a wider series where additional aspects of patients with prior CABG should be factored into decisions and methods of revascularisation.

No benefit of additional treatment with exenatide in patients with an acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES: This double blinded, placebo controlled randomized clinical trial studies the effect of exenatide on myocardial infarct size. The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist exenatide has possible cardioprotective properties during reperfusion after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. METHODS: 191 patients were randomly assigned to intravenous exenatide or placebo initiated prior to percutaneous coronary intervention using 10µg/h for 30min followed by 0.84µg/h for 72h. Patients with a previous myocardial infarction, Trombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow 2 or 3, multi-vessel disease, or diabetes were excluded. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed to determine infarct size, area at risk (AAR) (using T2-weighted hyperintensity (T2W) and late enhancement endocardial surface area (ESA)). The primary endpoint was of 4-month final infarct size, corrected for the AAR measured in the acute phase using MRI. RESULTS: After exclusion, 91 patients (age 57.4±10.1years, 76% male) completed the protocol. There were no baseline differences between groups. No difference was found in infarct size corrected for the AAR in the exenatide group compared to the placebo group (37.1±18.8 vs. 39.3±20.1%, p=0.662). There was also no difference in infarct size (18.8±13.2 vs. 18.8±11.3% of left ventricular mass, p=0.965). No major adverse cardiac events occurred during the in-hospital phase. CONCLUSION: Exenatide did not reduce myocardial infarct size expressed as a percentage of AAR in ST elevated myocardial infarction patients successfully treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.