Impella Versus Non-Impella for Nonemergent High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The benefit of mechanical circulatory support with Impella (Abiomed, Inc., Danvers, Massachusetts) for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI) is uncertain. PROTECT III registry data showed improved outcomes with Impella compared with historical data (PROTECT II) but lacks a direct comparison with the HR-PCI cohort without Impella support. We retrospectively identified patients meeting the PROTECT III inclusion criteria for HR-PCI and compared this group (non-Impella cohort [NonIMP]) with the outcomes data from the PROTECT III registry (Impella cohort). Baseline differences were balanced using inverse propensity weighting. The coprimary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in-hospital and at 90 days. A total of 283 patients at great risk did not receive Impella support; 200 patients had 90-days event ascertainment and were included in the inverse propensity weighting analysis and compared with 504 patients in the Impella cohort group. After calibration, few residual differences remained between groups. The primary outcome was not different in-hospital (3.0% vs 4.8%, p = 0.403) but less in NonIMP at 90 days (7.5% vs 13.8%, p = 0.033). Periprocedural vascular complications, bleeding, and transfusion rate did not differ between groups; however, acute kidney injury occurred more frequently in the NonIMP group (10.5% vs 5.4%, p = 0.023). In conclusion, under identical HR-PCI inclusion criteria for Impella use in PROTECT III, an institutional non-Impella-supported HR-PCI cohort showed similar MACE in-hospital but fewer MACE at 90 days, whereas there was no signal for periprocedural harm with Impella use. These results do not support routine usage of Impella for patients with HR-PCI.

Percutaneous Left Ventricular Unloading During High-Risk Coronary Intervention: Rationale and Design of the CHIP-BCIS3 Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Percutaneous coronary intervention for complex coronary disease is associated with a high risk of cardiogenic shock. This can cause harm and limit the quality of revascularization achieved, especially when left ventricular function is impaired at the outset. Elective percutaneous left ventricular unloading is increasingly used to mitigate adverse events in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention, but this strategy has fiscal and clinical costs and is not supported by robust evidence.

METHODS

CHIP-BCIS3 (Controlled Trial of High-Risk Coronary Intervention With Percutaneous Left Ventricular Unloading) is a prospective, multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial that aims to determine whether a strategy of elective percutaneous left ventricular unloading is superior to standard care (no planned mechanical circulatory support) in patients undergoing nonemergent high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients are eligible for recruitment if they have severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, extensive coronary artery disease, and are due to undergo complex percutaneous coronary intervention (to the left main stem with calcium modification or to a chronic total occlusion with a retrograde approach). Cardiogenic shock and acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction are exclusions. The primary outcome is a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, stroke, spontaneous myocardial infarction, cardiovascular hospitalization, and periprocedural myocardial infarction, analyzed using the win ratio. Secondary outcomes include completeness of revascularization, major bleeding, vascular complications, health economic analyses, and health-related quality of life. A sample size of 250 patients will have in excess of 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.62 at a minimum of 12 months, assuming 150 patients experience an event across all follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, 169 patients have been recruited from 21 National Health Service hospitals in the United Kingdom, with recruitment expected to complete in 2024.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05003817.

Association between Impella device support and elevated rates of gout flares: a retrospective propensity-matched study

BACKGROUND

Impella is an advanced ventricular assist device frequently used as a bridge to heart transplantation. The association of Impella with increased rates of gout flares has not been studied. Our primary aim is to determine the rates of gout flares in patients on Impella support.

METHODOLOGY

A retrospective study was conducted between January 2017 and September 2022 involving all patients who underwent heart transplantation. The cohort was divided into two groups based on Impella support for statistical analysis. In patients receiving Impella support, outcome measures were compared based on the development of gout flares. 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity match, as well as inverse propensity of treatment weighted analyses, were performed to explore the causal relationship between impella use and gout flare in our study population.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 213 patients, among which 42 (19.71%) patients were supported by Impella. Impella and non-Impella groups had similar age, race, and BMI, but more males were in the Impella group. Gout and chronic kidney disease were more prevalent in Impella-supported patients, while coronary artery disease was less common. The prevalence of gout flare was significantly higher in Impella patients (30.9% vs. 5.3%). 42 Impella-supported patients were matched with 42 patients from the non-impella group upon performing a 1:1 propensity matching. Impella-supported patients were noted to have a significantly higher risk of gout flare (30.9% vs. 7.1%, SMD = 0.636), despite no significant difference in pre-existing gout history and use of anti-gout medications. Impella use was associated with a significantly increased risk of gout flare in unadjusted (OR 8.07), propensity-matched (OR 5.83), and the inverse propensity of treatment-weighted analysis (OR 4.21).

CONCLUSION

Our study is the first to identify the potential association between Impella support and increased rates of gout flares in hospitalized patients. Future studies are required to confirm this association and further elucidate the biological pathways. It is imperative to consider introducing appropriate measures to prevent and promptly manage gout flares in Impella-supported patients.

Prevalence of bleeding events in real-world Japanese registry for Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device

PURPOSE

Bleeding complication is a critical risk factor for outcomes of acute heart failure patients requiring mechanical circulatory support (MCS), including percutaneous catheter-type heart pumps (Impella). The Japanese registry for Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device (J-PVAD) is an ongoing, large-scale, real-world registry to characterize Japanese patients requiring Impella. Here we analyzed bleeding complication profiles in patients who received Impella.

METHODS

All consecutive Japanese patients who received Impella from October 2017 to January 2020 were enrolled. The 30-day survival and bleeding complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 1344 patients were included: 653 patients received Impella alone, 685 patients received a combination of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and Impella (ECPELLA), and 6 patients had failed Impella delivery. Overall 30-day survival was 67.0%, with Impella alone at 81.9% and ECPELLA at 52.7%. Overall bleeding/hematoma adverse events with a relation or not-excluded relation to Impella was 6.92%. Among them, the rates of hematoma and bleeding from medical device access sites were 1.41% and 4.09%, respectively. There was no difference between etiologies for these events.

CONCLUSION

This study represents the first 3-year survival and the safety profile focused on bleeding adverse events from the J-PVAD registry. The results show that the real-world frequency of bleeding adverse events for patients who received Impella was an expected range from previous reports, and future real-world studies should aim to expand this data set to improve outcomes and adverse events.

Strategies for Reducing Vascular and Bleeding Risk for Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device-supported High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

In patients at high risk for haemodynamic instability during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), practitioners are increasingly opting for prophylactic mechanical circulatory support, such as the Impella® heart pump (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA). Though Impella-supported high-risk PCI (HRPCI) ensures haemodynamic stability during the PCI procedure, access-related complication rates have varied significantly in published studies. Reported variability in complication rates relates to many factors, including anticoagulation practices, access and closure strategy, post-procedure care and variations in event definitions. This article aims to outline optimal strategies to minimize vascular and bleeding complications during Impella-supported HRPCI based on previously identified clinical, procedural and postprocedural risk factors. Practices to reduce complications include femoral skills training, standardized protocols to optimize access, closure, anticoagulation management and post-procedural care, as well as the application of techniques and technological advances. Protocols integrating these strategies to mitigate access-related bleeding and vascular complications for Impella-supported procedures can markedly limit vascular access risk as a barrier to appropriate large-bore mechanical circulatory support use in HRPCI.

Improved outcomes in patients with severely depressed LVEF undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with contemporary practices

BACKGROUND

Contemporary practices for hemodynamically supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention have evolved over the last decade. This study sought to compare outcomes of the prospective, multicenter, PROTECT III study to historic patients treated with Impella in the PROTECT II randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Of 1,134 patients enrolled in PROTECT III from March 2017 to March 2020, 504 were "PROTECT II-like" (met eligibility for PROTECT II randomized controlled trial) and are referred to as PROTECT III for comparative analysis. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), comprising all-cause mortality, stroke/transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization, were compared at hospital discharge and 90 days.

RESULTS

Compared with PROTECT II (N = 216), PROTECT III patients were less often Caucasian (77.1% vs 83.8%, P = .045), with less prior CABG (13.7% vs 39.4%; P < .001) and prior myocardial infarction (40.7% vs 69.3%; P < .001). More PROTECT III patients underwent rotational atherectomy (37.1% vs 14.8%, P < .001) and duration of support was longer (median 1.6 vs 1.3 hours; p<0.001), with greater improvement achieved in myocardial ischemia jeopardy scores (7.0±2.4 vs 4.4±2.9; P < .001) and SYNTAX scores (21.4±10.8 vs 15.7±9.5; P < .001). In-hospital bleeding requiring transfusion was significantly lower in PROTECT III (1.8% vs 9.3%; P < .001), as was procedural hypotension (2.2% vs 10.1%; P < .001) and cardiopulmonary resuscitation or ventricular arrhythmia (1.6% vs 6.9%; P < .001). At 90 days, MACCE was 15.1% and 21.9% in PROTECT III and PROTECT II, respectively (p=0.037). Following propensity score matching, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed improved 90-day MACCE rates in PROTECT III (10.4% vs 16.9%, P = .048).

CONCLUSIONS

The PROTECT III study demonstrates improved completeness of revascularization, less bleeding, and improved 90-day clinical outcomes compared to PROTECT II for Impella-supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention among patients with severely depressed LVEF.

A Review of the Impella Devices

The use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) to provide acute haemodynamic support for cardiogenic shock or to support high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HRPCI) has grown over the past decade. There is currently no consensus on best practice regarding its use in these two distinct indications. Impella heart pumps (Abiomed) are intravascular microaxial blood pumps that provide temporary MCS during HRPCI or in the treatment of cardiogenic shock. The authors outline technical specifications of the individual Impella heart pumps and their accompanying technology, the Automated Impella Controller and SmartAssist, their indications for use and patient selection, implantation techniques, device weaning and escalation, closure strategies, anticoagulation regimens, complications, future directions and upcoming trials.