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... Show moreObjectives. 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. Show less
It is important to gain more insight into the cardiogenic shock (CS) population, as currently, little is known on how to improve outcomes. Therefore, we assessed clinical outcome in acute coronary... Show moreIt is important to gain more insight into the cardiogenic shock (CS) population, as currently, little is known on how to improve outcomes. Therefore, we assessed clinical outcome in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with and without CS at admission. Furthermore, the incidence of CS and predictors for mortality in CS patients were evaluated. The Netherlands Heart Registration (NHR) is a nationwide registry on all cardiac interventions. We used NHR data of ACS patients treated with PCI between 2015 and 2019. Among 75,407 ACS patients treated with PCI, 3028 patients (4.1%) were identified with CS, respectively 4.3%, 3.9%, 3.5%, and 4.3% per year. Factors associated with mortality in CS were age (HR 1.02, 95%CI 1.02-1.03), eGFR (HR 0.98, 95%CI 0.98-0.99), diabetes mellitus (DM) (HR 1.25, 95%CI 1.08-1.45), multivessel disease (HR 1.22, 95%CI 1.06-1.39), prior myocardial infarction (MI) (HR 1.24, 95%CI 1.06-1.45), and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) (HR 1.71, 95%CI 1.50-1.94). In conclusion, in this Dutch nationwide registry-based study of ACS patients treated by PCI, the incidence of CS was 4.1% over the 4-year study period. Predictors for mortality in CS were higher age, renal insufficiency, presence of DM, multivessel disease, prior MI, and OHCA. Show less
