Despite advances in treatment, mortality in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains high. Short-term mechanical circulatory support devices acutely improve ...hemodynamic conditions.
The aim of this study was to determine whether a new percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) device (Impella CP, Abiomed, Danvers, Massachusetts) decreases 30-day mortality when compared with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients with severe shock complicating AMI.
In a randomized, prospective, open-label, multicenter trial, 48 patients with severe CS complicating AMI were assigned to pMCS (n = 24) or IABP (n = 24). Severe CS was defined as systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg or the need for inotropic or vasoactive medication and the requirement for mechanical ventilation. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality.
At 30 days, mortality in patients treated with either IABP or pMCS was similar (50% and 46%, respectively; hazard ratio with pMCS: 0.96; 95% confidence interval: 0.42 to 2.18; p = 0.92). At 6 months, mortality rates for both pMCS and IABP were 50% (hazard ratio: 1.04; 95% confidence interval: 0.47 to 2.32; p = 0.923).
In this explorative randomized controlled trial involving mechanically ventilated patients with CS after AMI, routine treatment with pMCS was not associated with reduced 30-day mortality compared with IABP. (IMPRESS in Severe Shock; NTR3450)
Display omitted
Purpose
Veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is increasingly used in patients during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock, to support both cardiac and pulmonary function. We performed a ...systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing mortality in patients treated with and without ECLS support in the setting of refractory cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.
Methods
We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the publisher subset of PubMed updated to December 2015. Thirteen studies were included of which nine included cardiac arrest patients (
n
= 3098) and four included patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction (
n
= 235). Data were pooled by a Mantel-Haenzel random effects model and heterogeneity was examined by the
I
2
statistic.
Results
In cardiac arrest, the use of ECLS was associated with an absolute increase of 30 days survival of 13 % compared with patients in which ECLS was not used 95 % CI 6–20 %;
p
< 0.001; number needed to treat (NNT) 7.7 and a higher rate of favourable neurological outcome at 30 days (absolute risk difference 14 %; 95 % CI 7–20 %;
p
< 0.0001; NNT 7.1). Propensity matched analysis, including 5 studies and 438 patients (219 in both groups), showed similar results. In cardiogenic shock, ECLS showed a 33 % higher 30-day survival compared with IABP (95 % CI, 14–52 %;
p
< 0.001; NNT 13) but no difference when compared with TandemHeart/Impella (−3 %; 95 % CI −21 to 14 %;
p
= 0.70; NNH 33).
Conclusions
In cardiac arrest, the use of ECLS was associated with an increased survival rate as well as an increase in favourable neurological outcome. In the setting of cardiogenic shock there was an increased survival with ECLS compared with IABP.
Aims Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with cardiogenic shock is strongly recommended (class IB) in the current guidelines. We ...performed meta-analyses to evaluate the evidence for IABP in STEMI with and without cardiogenic shock. Methods and results Medical literature databases were scrutinized to identify randomized trials comparing IABP with no IABP in STEMI. In absence of randomized trials, cohort studies of IABP in STEMI with cardiogenic shock were identified. Two separate meta-analyses were performed respectively. The first meta-analysis included seven randomized trials (n = 1009) of STEMI. IABP showed neither a 30-day survival benefit nor improved left ventricular ejection fraction, while being associated with significantly higher stroke and bleeding rates. The second meta-analysis included nine cohorts of STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock (n = 10529). In patients treated with thrombolysis, IABP was associated with an 18% 95% confidence interval (CI), 16–20%; P < 0.0001 decrease in 30 day mortality, albeit with significantly higher revascularization rates compared to patients without support. Contrariwise, in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention, IABP was associated with a 6% (95% CI, 3–10%; P < 0.0008) increase in 30 day mortality. Conclusion The pooled randomized data do not support IABP in patients with high-risk STEMI. The meta-analysis of cohort studies in the setting of STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock supported IABP therapy adjunctive to thrombolysis. In contrast, the observational data did not support IABP therapy adjunctive to primary PCI. All available observational data concerning IABP therapy in the setting of cardiogenic shock is importantly hampered by bias and confounding. There is insufficient evidence endorsing the current guideline recommendation for the use of IABP therapy in the setting of STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock. Our meta-analyses challenge the current guideline recommendations.
The authors sought to evaluate the relative performance of a drug-eluting balloon (DEB) and a drug-eluting stent (DES) in patients with any (bare-metal or drug-eluting stent) in-stent restenosis ...(ISR).
The treatment of ISR remains challenging in contemporary clinical practice.
In a multicenter randomized noninferiority trial, patients with any ISR were randomly allocated in a 1:1 fashion to treatment with a DEB (SeQuent Please paclitaxel-eluting balloon, B. Braun Melsungen, Melsungen, Germany), or a DES (XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California). The primary endpoint was noninferiority in terms of in-segment minimal lumen diameter (MLD) at 6-month angiographic follow-up. Secondary endpoints included angiographic parameters at 6 months and clinical follow-up up to 12 months.
A total of 278 patients, of whom 56% had DES-ISR, were randomized at 8 sites to treatment with DEB (n = 141) or DES (n = 137). As compared with DEB, DES was associated with larger MLD and lower % stenosis immediately post-procedure (1.84 ± 0.46 vs. 1.72 ± 0.35; p = 0.018; and 26 ± 10% vs. 30 ± 10%; p = 0.03). Angiographic follow up was completed at 196 ± 53 days in 79% of patients. With respect to the primary endpoint of in-segment MLD at 6 months, DEB was noninferior to DES (DEB 1.71 ± 0.51 mm vs. DES 1.74 ± 0.61 mm; p for noninferiority <0.0001). Target vessel revascularization at 12-month follow-up was similar in both groups (DES 7.1% vs. DEB 8.8%; p = 0.65).
In patients with ISR, treatment with DEB was noninferior compared with DES in terms of 6-month MLD. There were no differences in clinical endpoints, including target vessel revascularization up to 12 months. Therefore, use of a DEB is an attractive treatment option for in-stent restenosis, withholding the need for additional stent implantation.
This retrospective multicenter registry evaluated the safety and feasibility of left ventricular (LV) support with the Impella 2.5 (Abiomed Europe GmbH, Aachen, Germany) during high-risk percutaneous ...coronary intervention (PCI).
Patients with complex or high-risk coronary lesions, such as last remaining vessel or left main lesions, are increasingly being treated with PCI. Because periprocedural hemodynamic compromise and complications might occur rapidly, many of these high-risk procedures are being performed with mechanical cardiac assistance, particularly in patients with poor LV function. The Impella 2.5, a percutaneous implantable LV assist device, might be a superior alternative to the traditionally used intra-aortic balloon pump.
The Europella registry included 144 consecutive patients who underwent a high-risk PCI. Safety and feasibility end points included incidence of 30-day adverse events and successful device function.
Patients were older (62% >70 years of age), 54% had an LV ejection fraction < or = 30%, and the prevalence of comorbid conditions was high. Mean European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score was 8.2 (SD 3.4), and 43% of the patients were refused for coronary artery bypass grafting. A PCI was considered high-risk due to left main disease, last remaining vessel disease, multivessel coronary artery disease, and low LV function in 53%, 17%, 81%, and 35% of the cases, respectively. Mortality at 30 days was 5.5%. Rates of myocardial infarction, stroke, bleeding requiring transfusion/surgery, and vascular complications at 30 days were 0%, 0.7%, 6.2%, and 4.0%, respectively.
This large multicenter registry supports the safety, feasibility, and potential usefulness of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 in high-risk PCI.
To assess differences in long-term outcome and functional status of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) treated by percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) and intra-aortic balloon pump ...(IABP).
Long-term follow-up of the multicentre, randomized IMPRESS in Severe Shock trial (NTR3450) was performed 5-year after initial randomization. Between 2012 and 2015, a total of 48 patients with severe CS from acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with ST-segment elevation undergoing immediate revascularization were randomized to pMCS by Impella CP (n = 24) or IABP (n = 24). For the 5-year assessment, all-cause mortality, functional status, and occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) were assessed. MACCE consisted of death, myocardial re-infarction, repeat percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, and stroke. Five-year mortality was 50% (n = 12/24) in pMCS patients and 63% (n = 15/24) in IABP patients (relative risk 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.47-1.59, P = 0.65). MACCE occurred in 12/24 (50%) of the pMCS patients vs. 19/24 (79%) of the IABP patients (P = 0.07). All survivors except for one were in New York Heart Association Class I/II pMCS n = 10 (91%) and IABP n = 7 (100%), P = 1.00 and none of the patients had residual angina. There were no differences in left ventricular ejection fraction between the groups (pMCS 52 ± 11% vs. IABP 48 ± 10%, P = 0.53).
In this explorative randomized trial of patients with severe CS after AMI, there was no difference in long-term 5-year mortality between pMCS and IABP-treated patients, supporting previously published short-term data and in accordance with other long-term CS trials.
Interventional cardiologists are increasingly exposed to radiation-induced diseases like cataract and the stochastic risk of left-sided brain tumors. The RADPAD is a sterile, disposable, lead-free ...shield placed on the patient with the aim to minimize operator-received scatter radiation. The objective of the trial was to examine the RADPAD's efficacy in a real-world situation.
In the current, double-blind, sham-controlled, all-comer trial, patients undergoing diagnostic catheterization or percutaneous coronary interventions were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to a radiation absorbing shield (RADPAD), standard treatment (NOPAD), or a sham shield (SHAMPAD). The sham shield allowed testing for shield-induced radiation behavior. The primary outcome was the difference in relative exposure of the primary operator between the RADPAD and NOPAD arms and was defined as the ratio between operator's exposure (E in µSv) and patient exposure (dose area product in mGy·cm
), measured per procedure. A total of 766 consecutive coronary procedures were randomized to the use of RADPAD (N=255), NOPAD (N=255), or SHAMPAD (N=256). The use of RADPAD was associated with a 20% reduction in relative operator exposure compared with that of NOPAD (
=0.01) and a 44% relative exposure reduction compared with the use of a SHAMPAD (
<0.001). Use of the SHAMPAD was associated with a 43% higher relative radiation exposure than procedures with NOPAD (
=0.009).
In clinical daily practice, the standard use of the RADPAD radiation shield reduced operator radiation exposure compared with procedures with NOPAD or SHAMPAD. This study supports the routine use of RADPAD in the catheterization laboratory.
URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03139968.
...research into pharmacological therapy counteracting haemodynamic deterioration and systemic inflammatory response syndrome warrants further evaluation.
PDF
