Prophylactic Mechanical Circulatory Support Use in Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices can be used in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Our objective was to describe trends and outcomes of prophylactic MCS use in elective PCI for patients with stable coronary artery disease in the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry's CathPCI registry.

METHODS:

Among 2 108 715 consecutive patients with stable coronary artery disease undergoing elective PCI in the CathPCI registry between 2009 and 2018, we examined patterns of prophylactic use of MCS. Propensity score models with inverse probability of treatment weighting compared effectiveness (in-hospital death, cardiogenic shock, or new heart failure) and safety (stroke, tamponade, major bleeding, or vascular complication requiring treatment) between patients treated with intra-aortic balloon pump versus other MCS (Impella or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation).

RESULTS:

Overall, 6905 (0.3%) patients underwent elective PCI with prophylactic MCS. MCS use trended up from 0.2% of elective PCIs in 2009 to 0.6% in 2018 (P<0.0001), driven by other MCS (P<0.0001), whereas intra-aortic balloon pump use remained low and constant (P=0.12). In-hospital major adverse cardiac events and cardiovascular complications occurred in 7.1% and 18.8% of elective PCI patients with prophylactic MCS use and 0.5% and 2.3% of patients without prophylactic MCS use. Intra-aortic balloon pump use was associated with a higher risk of major adverse cardiac events (9.6% versus 6.0%, adjusted odds ratio, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.32-1.91]) but lower risk of complications (18.2% versus 19.1%, adjusted odds ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.77-0.99]) than use of other MCS.

CONCLUSIONS:

The use of prophylactic MCS has increased over time for elective PCI in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Intra-aortic balloon pump was associated with higher major adverse cardiac events but lower risk of procedural complications compared with other MCS.

• Authors: Michel Zeitouni, Guillaume Marquis-Gravel, Nathaniel R Smilowitz, Pearl Zakroysky, Daniel M Wojdyla, Amin P Amit, Sunil V Rao, Tracy Y Wang
• Journal: Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions (Circ Cardiovasc Interv) Vol. 15 Issue 5 Pg. e011534 (05 2022) ISSN: 1941-7632 [Electronic] United States
• PMID: 35580202 (Publication Type: Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't)

Topics

• Coronary Artery Disease (complications, diagnostic imaging, therapy)
• Heart-Assist Devices (adverse effects)
• Hospital Mortality
• Humans
• Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping (adverse effects)
• Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (adverse effects)
• Retrospective Studies
• Risk Factors
• Shock, Cardiogenic (etiology, therapy)
• Treatment Outcome