Use of the Impella 2.5 for prophylactic circulatory support during elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention

Alasnag, Mirvat; Gardi, Delair; Elder, Mahir; Kannam, Hari; Ali, Farhan; Petrina, Mircea; Kheterpal, Vipin; Hout, Mariah S.; Schreiber, Theodore

doi:10.1016/j.carrev.2011.02.002

Cited by 30 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, the device was implanted and explanted safely in all the patients with minimal bleeding complication. This is similar to a recent study, which showed that their patients experienced a high rate of procedural success and a reasonable length of stay post-intervention with a low 30-day MACE rate at follow-up [13]. …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

The Duration of Impella 2.5 Circulatory Support and Length of Hospital Stay of Patients Undergoing High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo evaluate the impact of duration of Impella 2.5 support (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) on hospitalization of patients after high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There has been a continuous increase in prevalence of coronary artery disease with more patients needing PCI during acute myocardial infarction. Some of these patients have to undergo high-risk revascularization with circulatory support like the Impella 2.5 device.MethodsThis study was a single center retrospective study of patients admitted to our hospital who required Impella circulatory support during percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients’ medical records, cardiac catheterization laboratory and 2-D echocardiography reports were reviewed to ascertain left ventricular ejection fraction, duration of Impella support, Coronary Care Unit (CCU) days and the length of stay in the hospital. A P-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsOver a 15-month period, we had 25 patients with 19 males and 6 females. Mean age of the patient cohort was 68 ± 10 years. Mean LVEF of the group was 32 ± 16%. Mean length of hospital stay was 8 ± 8 days and mean CCU stay was 4 ± 4 days. The Impella was successfully inserted in all cases with a median duration of support of 70 minutes (range, 4 - 5760 minutes). Bleeding complication occurred in 8%. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between the duration of Impella support and hospital stay was 0.49 (P = 0.023) while it was 0.71 (P = 0.001) between Impella support duration and CCU days.ConclusionsOur study suggests that there is a positive correlation between the duration of Impella 2.5 circulatory support and hospital stay and/or CCU days. The correlation seems to be stronger with CCU days.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

The Duration of Impella 2.5 Circulatory Support and Length of Hospital Stay of Patients Undergoing High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, neither reached statistical significance due to their modest sample sizes. In most uncontrolled studies, the 30‐day rates of all‐cause mortality were generally low; ranging from 3.7% to 10% (Table ). Higher rates were observed in the cohort studies by Engstrom et al , Henriques et al , Venugopal et al , and O'Neill et al (74%, 21%, 18%, and 42.6%, respectively), likely due to differences in study population.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 20 studies consisted of 4 RCTs [5,6,26,27] and 16 observational studies [7,8,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25], including a total of 1,287 patients ( Table 1). All studies were published between 2006 and 2016, and the durations of follow-up ranged from 1 to 42 months.…”

Section: Study and Patient Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effectiveness and safety of the Impella ventricular assist device for high‐risk percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review

Ichou

Larivée

Eisenberg

et al. 2017

Cathet Cardio Intervent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In an effort to reduce the invasiveness and peri‐procedural complications of contemporary circulatory support systems, temporary percutaneous cardiac assist devices (pVADs) such as the Impella family of devices (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) and the TandemHeart™ (CardiacAssist, Pittsburgh, PA) have been developed. In patients with or without CS undergoing a high‐risk PCI, the effectiveness of prophylactic circulatory support with Impella 2.5 has been clearly demonstrated with high procedural success, low complication rates, and clinically significant improvements in hemodynamics . For example, results from the randomized PROTECT II trial revealed a 22% relative risk reduction of major adverse events in favor of Impella and a 52% reduction in the number of repeat revascularization procedures .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Percutaneous cardiac assist devices compared with surgical hemodynamic support alternatives

Maini

Gregory²,

Scotti

et al. 2014

Cathet Cardio Intervent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For patients in CS requiring emergent hemodynamic support, pVAD therapy offers a less invasive alternative that can be deployed sooner, resulting in better outcomes, shorter LOS, lower costs and with no incremental cost, and a survival benefit when compared with traditional surgical hemodynamic support alternatives. PVAD therapy (and Impella 2.5 in particular) is emerging as a dominant strategy for this challenging patient population.

show abstract

Use of the Impella 2.5 for prophylactic circulatory support during elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention

Cited by 30 publications

References 13 publications

The Duration of Impella 2.5 Circulatory Support and Length of Hospital Stay of Patients Undergoing High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

The Duration of Impella 2.5 Circulatory Support and Length of Hospital Stay of Patients Undergoing High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

The effectiveness and safety of the Impella ventricular assist device for high‐risk percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review

Percutaneous cardiac assist devices compared with surgical hemodynamic support alternatives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About