Background— Although coronary artery bypass grafting is generally preferred in symptomatic patients with severe, complex multivessel, or left main disease, some patients present with clinical features that make coronary artery bypass grafting clinically unattractive. Percutaneous coronary intervention with hemodynamic support may be feasible for these patients. Currently, there is no systematic comparative evaluation of hemodynamic support devices for this indication. Methods and Results— We randomly assigned 452 symptomatic patients with complex 3-vessel disease or unprotected left main coronary artery disease and severely depressed left ventricular function to intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) (n=226) or Impella 2.5 (n=226) support during nonemergent high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary end point was the 30-day incidence of major adverse events. A 90-day follow-up was required, as well, by protocol. Impella 2.5 provided superior hemodynamic support in comparison with IABP, with maximal decrease in cardiac power output from baseline of −0.04±0.24 W in comparison with −0.14±0.27 W for IABP ( P =0.001). The primary end point (30-day major adverse events) was not statistically different between groups: 35.1% for Impella 2.5 versus 40.1% for IABP, P =0.227 in the intent-to-treat population and 34.3% versus 42.2%, P =0.092 in the per protocol population. At 90 days, a strong trend toward decreased major adverse events was observed in Impella 2.5–supported patients in comparison with IABP: 40.6% versus 49.3%, P =0.066 in the intent-to-treat population and 40.0% versus 51.0%, P =0.023 in the per protocol population, respectively. Conclusions— The 30-day incidence of major adverse events was not different for patients with IABP or Impella 2.5 hemodynamic support. However, trends for improved outcomes were observed for Impella 2.5–supported patients at 90 days. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00562016.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the periprocedural characteristics and outcomes of patients supported with Impella 2.5 prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (pre-PCI) versus those who received it after PCI (post-PCI) in the setting of cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating an acute myocardial infarction (AMI).BackgroundEarly mechanical circulatory support may improve outcome in the setting of CS complicating an AMI. However, the optimal timing to initiate hemodynamic support has not been well characterized.MethodsData from 154 consecutive patients who underwent PCI and Impella 2.5 support from 38 US hospitals participating in the USpella Registry were included in our study. The primary end-point was survival to discharge. Secondary end-points included assessment of patients’ hemodynamics and in-hospital complications. A multivariate regression model was used to identify independent predictors for mortality.ResultsBoth groups were comparable except for diabetes (P = 0.02), peripheral vascular disease (P = 0.008), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = 0.05), and prior stroke (P = 0.04), all of which were more prevalent in the pre-PCI group. Patients in the pre-PCI group had more lesions (P = 0.006) and vessels (P = 0.01) treated. These patients had also significantly better survival to discharge compared to patients in the post-PCI group (65.1% vs.40.7%, P = 0.003). Survival remained favorable for the pre-PCI group after adjusting for potential confounding variables. Initiation of support prior to PCI with Impella 2.5 was an independent predictor of in-hospital survival (Odds ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval: 0.17–0.79, P = 0.01) in multivariate analysis. The incidence of in-hospital complications included in the secondary end-point was similar between the 2 groups.ConclusionsThe results of our study suggest that early initiation of hemodynamic support prior to PCI with Impella 2.5 is associated with more complete revascularization and improved survival in the setting of refractory CS complicating an AMI.

No abstract

No abstract

Background-Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) in3% to 15% of cases (depending on the definition used). In many cases, these MIs result from distal embolization of lipid-core plaque (LCP) constituents. Prospective identification of LCP with catheter-based near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) may predict an increased risk of periprocedural MI and facilitate development of preventive measures. Methods and Results-The present study analyzed the relationship between the presence of a large LCP (detected by NIRS) and periprocedural MI. Patients with stable preprocedural cardiac biomarkers undergoing stenting were identified from the COLOR Registry, an ongoing prospective observational study of patients undergoing NIRS before PCI. The extent of LCP in the treatment zone was calculated as the maximal lipid-core burden index (LCBI) measured by NIRS for each of the 4-mm longitudinal segments in the treatment zone. A periprocedural MI was defined as new cardiac biomarker elevation above 3ϫ upper limit of normal. A total of 62 patients undergoing stenting met eligibility criteria. A large LCP (defined as a maxLCBI 4 mm Ն500) was present in 14 of 62 lesions (22.6%), and periprocedural MI was documented in 9 of 62 (14.5%) of cases. Periprocedural MI occurred in 7 of 14 patients (50%) with a maxLCBI 4 mm Ն500, compared with 2 of 48 patients (4.2%) patients with a lower maxLCBI 4 mm (Pϭ0.0002). Conclusions-NIRS

PFO closure did not meet the primary endpoint of reduction in responder rate in patients with frequent migraine. (Prospective, Randomized Investigation to Evaluate Incidence of Headache Reduction in Subjects With Migraine and PFO Using the AMPLATZER PFO Occluder to Medical Management [PREMIUM]; NCT00355056).

The use of Impella 2.5 in high-risk PCI appeared feasible and safe in the real-world setting. The utilization of the Impella 2.5 was successful, resulting in favorable short- and midterm angiographic, procedural and clinical outcomes.

Combining NIRS with IVUS contributes to the understanding of plaque characterization in vivo. Further studies are warranted to determine whether combining NIRS and IVUS will contribute to the assessment of high-risk plaques to predict outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease.