INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY
Supported High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With the Impella 2.5 DeviceThe Europella Registry
Krischan D. Sjauw, MD*,
Thomas Konorza, MD ,
Raimund Erbel, MD, PhD ,
Paolo L. Danna, MD, PhD ,
Maurizio Viecca, MD, PhD ,
Hans-Heinrich Minden, MD, PhD ,
Christian Butter, MD ,
Thomas Engstrøm, MD, PhD||,
Christian Hassager, MD, PhD||,
Francisco P. Machado, MD, PhD¶,
Giovanni Pedrazzini, MD, PhD#,
Daniel R. Wagner, MD, PhD**,
Rainer Schamberger, MD, PhD ,
Sebastian Kerber, MD, PhD ,
Detlef G. Mathey, MD, PhD ,
Joachim Schofer, MD, PhD ,
Annemarie E. Engström, MD* and
Jose P.S. Henriques, MD, PhD*,*
* Academic Medical Center–University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Universitäts Klinikum, Essen, Germany
Sacco Hospital, Milano, Italy
Heart Center Brandenburg in Bernau, Berlin, Germany
|| University Hospital of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
¶ Hospital de Santa Cruz, Carnaxide, Portugal
# Cardiocentro Ticino, Lugano, Switzerland
** Centre Hospitalier, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
 Herz-und Gefäß-Klinik, Bad Neustadt, Germany
 Center for Cardiology and Vascular Intervention, Hamburg, Germany
Manuscript received May 25, 2009;
revised manuscript received September 3, 2009,
accepted September 14, 2009.
* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Jose P. S. Henriques, Department of Cardiology, Academic Medical Center–University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands (Email: j.p.henriques{at}amc.uva.nl).
Objectives: 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).
Background: 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.
Methods: 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.
Results: Patients were older (62% >70 years of age), 54% had an LV ejection fraction 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.
Conclusions: This large multicenter registry supports the safety, feasibility, and potential usefulness of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 in high-risk PCI.
Key Words: high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention Impella 2.5 percutaneous left ventricular assist device safety and feasibility
|
Abbreviations and Acronyms
| | CABG = coronary artery bypass grafting | | CAD = coronary artery disease | | EuroSCORE = European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation | | IABP = intra-aortic balloon pump | | LMCA = left main coronary artery | | LV = left ventricle/ventricular | | LVAD = left ventricular assist device | | LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction | | MI = myocardial infarction | | MVD = multivessel disease | | PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention |
|
Related Articles
-
Benefit With Impella?
- Kirk N. Garratt and David R. Holmes
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2010 55: 2608.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
-
Reply
- Krischan D. Sjauw, Annemarie E. Engström, Jose P.S. Henriques on behalf of the Europella Registry Investigators
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2010 55: 2608-2609.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
-
Inside This Issue
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2009 54: A35.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
H. Thiele, B. Allam, G. Chatellier, G. Schuler, and A. Lafont
Shock in acute myocardial infarction: the Cape Horn for trials?
Eur. Heart J.,
August 1, 2010;
31(15):
1828 - 1835.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
K. N. Garratt and D. R. Holmes
Benefit with impella?
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
June 8, 2010;
55(23):
2608 - 2608.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
K. D. Sjauw, A. E. Engstrom, J. P. S. Henriques, and on behalf of the Europella Registry Investigators
Reply.
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
June 8, 2010;
55(23):
2608 - 2609.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. R. Dixon, C. L. Grines, and W. W. O'Neill
The year in interventional cardiology.
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
May 18, 2010;
55(20):
2272 - 2286.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Supported with the Impella 2.5 Device
Journal Watch Cardiology,
January 27, 2010;
2010(127):
2 - 2.
[Full Text]
|
 |
|
|