Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjacc/zuab094 | DOI Listing |
Front Cardiovasc Med
January 2025
School of Medicine, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Although mortality risk prediction in cardiogenic shock (CS) is possible, assessing the impact of the multitude of therapeutic efforts on outcomes is not straightforward. We assessed whether a temporary mechanical circulatory support comprehensive approach to the treatment of CS may reduce 30-day mortality as compared to expected mortality predicted by the recently proposed Cardiogenic Shock Score (CSS). Consecutive CS patients supported by pVAD Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) at two national referral centers were included.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFHeart Vessels
January 2025
Division of Cardiology, Mitsui Memorial Hospital, Kanda-Izumicho 1, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-8643, Japan.
The concomitant use of IMPELLA and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO) (ECPELLA) has been increasingly used to treat severe cardiogenic shock. However, the relationship between severity of heart failure on admission and prognosis based on differences in the mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is not fully understood. This study evaluated the association between lactate levels on admission and clinical outcomes based on differences in MCS.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFHeart Vessels
January 2025
Saitama Sekishinkai Hospital, 2-37-20 Irumagawa, Sayama, Saitama, Japan.
Postinfarction ventricular septal rupture (PIVSR) is a rare but serious complication of acute myocardial infarction. Determining how to conduct surgical repair safely is critical. We compared the outcomes of Impella and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) implantation during perioperative mechanical circulatory support management in patients with PIVSR (n = 22).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAm J Cardiol
January 2025
Section of Interventional Cardiology, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA. Electronic address:
Background: The benefit of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with Impella (Abiomed, Inc, Danvers, MA) for patients undergoing non-emergent, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI) is unclear and currently the subject of a large randomized clinical trial (RCT), PROTECT IV. While contemporary registry data from PROTECT III demonstrated improvement of outcomes with Impella when compared with historical data (PROTECT II), there is lack of direct comparison to the HR-PCI cohort that did not receive Impella support.
Methods: We retrospectively identified patients from our institution meeting PROTECT III inclusion criteria (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] <35% with unprotected left main or last remaining vessel or LVEF <30% undergoing multivessel PCI), and compared this group (NonIMP) to the published outcomes data from the PROTECT III registry (IMP).
J Clin Med
January 2025
Department of Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Care, Philipps University Marburg, 35043 Marburg, Germany.
Emerging evidence suggests the role of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in the therapy of refractory cardiogenic shock (CS). However, largerandomized trials addressing the role of Impella in the therapy of infarct-associated CS are sparse. As such, evidence coming from comprehensive retrospective studies or meta-analyses is of major importance in order to clarify the role of the Impella device in this setting.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!