Clinical outcomes in patients undergoing complex, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention and haemodynamic support with intra-aortic balloon versus Impella pump: Real-life single-centre preliminary results.

BACKGROUND

Patients and mechanical circulatory support assortment, as well as periprocedural and post-procedural clinical outcomes in complex high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) underpinned by percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVAD) are the subject of debate.

AIMS

The study aimed to identify differences between patients qualified for complex high-risk PCIs with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or Impella pump support and to compare peri- and post-procedural clinical outcomes.

METHODS

The presented analysis is a single-center study, which comprised consecutive patients undergoing complex high-risk PCIs performed with the pLVAD, either IABP or Impella. Patients included in the current analysis were recruited between January 2018 and December 2021. There were 28 (56%) patients in the Impella group and 22 (44%) in the IABP group. The primary endpoints included overall mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) such as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and cerebrovascular events.

RESULTS

Patients from the IABP group were significantly older, had higher left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and less frequent history of PCI, while the in-hospital risk of death assessed by EuroSCORE II remained similar in the Impella and IABP groups (median interquartile range [IQR] 2.8 [2-3.8] vs. 2.5 [1.8-5.2]; P = 0.73). Patients undergoing complex high-risk PCIs with pLVAD support presented similar results during the follow-up, assessed by log-rank estimates in terms of MACE (P = 0.41) and mortality rate (P = 0.65).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of pLVAD devices in patients undergoing complex high-risk PCIs, with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, is a promising treatment option for patients disqualified from surgery by cardiac surgeons.