Use of the CardioHELP Device for Temporary Hemodynamic Support During High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Temporary extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been described in select patients, and data are limited on the CardioHELP device (Maquet). The objective of this study was to assess clinical outcomes in patients undergoing elective, high-risk PCI with CardioHELP support. METHODS: Fifteen consecutive patients receiving the CardioHELP device for elective, high-risk PCI treated at 2 medical centers were included. Patients with cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, or non-PCI indications for ECMO were excluded. Baseline demographics, angiographic variables, procedure-related variables, and in-hospital events were collected. RESULTS: Mean age was 71 ± 11 years, 73% were male, mean ejection fraction (EF) was 29 ± 13%, 10 patients (67%) had an EF <30%, and mean SYNTAX I score was 32 ± 11. Multivessel coronary artery disease was present in 14 patients (93%) and unprotected left main coronary artery disease was present in 4 patients (27%). PCI was successful in all patients. In-hospital mortality occurred in 3 patients (20%), 7 patients (47%) received a blood transfusion, and there were no major vascular complications. CONCLUSION: Temporary use of the CardioHELP device for high-risk PCI is associated with acceptable short-term outcome and may be a new option for patients with complex coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction.

Long-term outcomes of drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in saphenous vein graft interventions. Evidence from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The optimal stent for use in saphenous vein graft (SVG) intervention is still debatable. Multiple randomized trials have compared drug-eluting stents (DES) to bare metal stents (BMS) in SVG interventions with conflicting results. METHODS: Authors searched the online databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DES to BMS in SVG percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). We performed a meta-analysis using a random effects model to calculate the odds ratio for outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Authors studied six RCTs that included 1592 patients undergoing PCI of SVG. The mean follow up was 42 months. Patients mean age was the same in both groups: 70.3 years in the DES group (approximately 93.3% male) and 70.3 years in the BMS group (approximately 93.8% male). Vein graft age was 13.4 years in the DES PCI arm vs. 13.4 years in the BMS PCI arm. Four of the six trials reported data on embolic protection device use: 67% (303/452) in the DES arm vs. 67.9% (309/455) in the BMS arm. The primary outcome of long-term all-cause mortality was not different between DES vs. BMS (15.2% vs. 14.1%, OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.67-1.88; P = 0.66). Secondary outcomes were also similar between DES and BMS: major adverse cardiovascular events (31.6% vs. 33.1%, OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.45-1.38; P = 0.41); cardiac death (9% vs. 8.6%, OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.55-2.30; P = 0.75); myocardial infarction (8% vs. 9.5%, OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.47-1.51; P = 0.57); target lesion revascularization (16.4% vs. 14.4%, OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.50-1.92; P = 0.95); and target vessel revascularization (19% vs. 19.4%, OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.41-1.34; P = 0.33). CONCLUSION: At a mean follow-up of 42 months, no difference was observed in clinical outcomes between DES and BMS in SVG interventions.