No abstract

Background:The objective of the study was to compare the renal outcomes in patients presenting with all-cause cardiogenic shock who were supported by either Impella devices (Abiomed, Danvers, MA), intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), or vasopressors alone. Outcomes of cardiogenic shock remain poor even with the advancement of early revascularization and circulatory supportive care. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device has emerged as an effective strategy in protecting end organ function especially renal function during high risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and in patients with cardiogenic shock. Currently, comparative data amongst various MCS modalities and their association with improvement of renal function in cardiogenic shock patients have not been well characterized.Methods: Data from New Jersey Cardiac Catheterization Data registry of cardiogenic shock patients from a single tertiary care institution that underwent cardiac catheterization and the modality used to treat were obtained, either with Impella devices, IABP, or treatment with vasopressors alone. Retrospective chart review was conducted to assess the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) on patients with cardiogenic shock prior to and after cardiac catheterization and renal function was evaluated over the course of 96 h after cardiac catheterization. Statistical analysis was performed to ascertain significant difference in creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in patients who received Impella devices, IABP, or were treated with vasopressors alone.Results: A total of 61 all-cause cardiogenic shock patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in the study with 19 receiving IABPs, 15 receiving Impella devices, and 27 treated with vasopressors alone. Baseline characteristics among these three groups did not show any statistically significant difference. A total of 29 cardiogenic shock patients had experienced AKI prior to cardiac catheterization in which those receiving Impella devices showed statistically significant decrease in creatinine and increase in eGFR at 72 and 96 h (P < 0.05) compared to baseline. Within the same cohort, Impella group showed statistically significant lower creatinine at 96 h when compared to IABP. Patients that experienced AKI after cardiac catheterization did not show any statistically significant changes in renal function regardless of modality used. Conclusion:The results of our study suggest that Impella devices improve renal function in all-cause cardiogenic shock patients who experience AKI prior to undergoing cardiac catheterization.

No abstract

Background Drug eluting stent (DES) failure including restenosis and stent thrombosis, or disease progression may result in target vessel revascularization (TVR) but the relative contribution of these mechanisms in the DES era is not well described. We sought to examine the predictors and presentations of patients with clinically driven TVR after DES. Methods Patients with all lesions treated with a DES in the Dynamic Registry from 2004 to 2006 were analyzed. Included were 2691 patients with 3401 lesions. Patients with and without incident clinically driven TVR at 2 years were compared according to baseline clinical, procedural, and angiographic characteristics and independent predictors of TVR and target lesion revascularization (TLR) were determined by multivariate analysis. Results By 2-years, TVR occurred in 7.2% of patients and TLR in 3.8%, with 71.6% and 82.5% of repeat revascularization events occurring in the first year, respectively. The indication for first TVR was myocardial infarction in 18.6 % (n=34), unstable angina in 42.6 % (n=78), stable coronary disease in 25.7% (n=47) and other/unknown 13.1% (n=24). Disease progression was responsible for 47% of TVR. Among patients with TLR, restenosis was the mechanism in 86.6% and stent thrombosis in 13.4%. Independent predictors of TVR included younger age, diabetes, attempted graft lesion, lesion length >30mm and prior lesion intervention. Independent predictors of TVR and TLR were similar. Conclusion The incidence of clinically driven TVR is low in patients treated with DES and nearly half is attributable to disease progression, which along with the low rate of in-stent restenosis explains why the mode of presentation is often an acute coronary syndrome.