Department of Cardiology, North Shore University Hospital, Northwell Health, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, USA.
Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2019 Jun;8(4):369-378. doi: 10.1177/2048872617745790. Epub 2018 Jan 8.
The interventional treatment of complex high-risk indicated patients is technically difficult and can result in poor outcomes. Thus, percutaneous left ventricular assist devices are being increasingly used to provide hemodynamic support. No data is available comparing male and female for Complex High-risk Indicated Patients treated with percutaneous left ventricular assist devices. Our goal was to evaluate in-hospital as well as short term outcomes comparing males and females.
There were 160 complex high-risk indicated patients with percutaneous left ventricular assist device use who were not in cardiogenic shock. A total of 132 male and 28 female patients were included. Ejection fraction below 35% with one additional criterion such as use of atherectomy device or treatment on unprotected left main disease or multi-vessel disease were our inclusion criteria. An Impella 2.5 or Impella CP (Abiomed Inc.) device was used as a left ventricular support device.
There was no difference in in-hospital mortality between the genders after performing a propensity score matched analysis (8.3% . 12.5%, =0.54). Secondary outcomes of myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, congestive heart failure, dysrhythmia, major adverse cardiac events and composite of all complications were higher in males. Furthermore, 30-day survival was similar in males and females (88.9% . 87.5%, =0.31). In addition, worse complications rates and survival were noted in patients with incomplete revascularization compared with those patients with complete revascularization in both gender.
This study demonstrated no gender difference in clinical outcomes when using percutaneous left ventricular assist device support for the treatment of complex high-risk indicated patients. Overall, males had higher secondary outcomes compared with females with no difference in in-hospital mortality or 30-day survival rates.
复杂高危适应证患者的介入治疗技术难度大,预后较差。因此,越来越多地使用经皮左心室辅助装置提供血液动力学支持。目前尚无比较经皮左心室辅助装置治疗的复杂高危适应证患者中男性和女性的临床结局的数据。我们的目的是评估比较男性和女性患者的住院和短期结局。
共有 160 例复杂高危适应证患者使用经皮左心室辅助装置,且均未发生心原性休克。共纳入 132 例男性和 28 例女性患者。纳入标准为射血分数低于 35%,且有其他一个标准,如使用旋磨装置或治疗未保护的左主干病变或多血管病变。使用 Impella 2.5 或 Impella CP(Abiomed Inc.)装置作为左心室支持装置。
在进行倾向评分匹配分析后,男女之间住院死亡率无差异(8.3%比 12.5%,=0.54)。次要结局如心肌梗死、心原性休克、充血性心力衰竭、心律失常、主要不良心脏事件和所有并发症的复合结局在男性中更高。此外,男性和女性的 30 天生存率相似(88.9%比 87.5%,=0.31)。此外,与完全血运重建患者相比,不完全血运重建患者的并发症发生率和生存率更差。
本研究表明,在使用经皮左心室辅助装置治疗复杂高危适应证患者时,性别对临床结局无影响。总体而言,男性的次要结局发生率高于女性,但住院死亡率或 30 天生存率无差异。