Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026
One-Year Outcomes of High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Interventions With Versus Without Mechanical Circulatory Support: Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gąsecka Aleksandra, Pietrasik Arkadiusz, Pawłowski Tomasz, Zimodro Jakub Michal, Cieśla Daniel, Sacha Jerzy, Grygier Marek, Kochman Janusz, Tajstra Mateusz, Dyrbuś Krzysztof, Wojakowski Wojciech, Mizia-Stec Katarzyna, Świątkowski Andrzej, Francuz Paweł, Kalarus Zbigniew, Smolka Grzegorz, Gąsior Mariusz
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Impella is increasingly used as mechanical circulatory support (MCS) during high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (HR-PCI). Registry-based data provide insights into the efficacy and safety of Impella-assisted HR-PCI.
AIMS: We aimed to evaluate 1-year outcomes of Impella-assisted HR-PCI compared to HR-PCI without MCS.
METHODS: One hundred and thirty-eight patients undergoing Impella-assisted PCI, included in the IMPELLA-PL registry, were propensity score-matched with controls from the retrospective CardioSilesia registry who underwent HR-PCI without MCS. Study endpoints included 1-year post-discharge all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, rehospitalization for heart failure (HF), and repeat coronary revascularization.
RESULTS: Clinical and angiographic characteristics were comparable in both groups, with higher rates of dyslipidemia (78.3% vs. 37.7%, p < 0.001), chronic kidney disease (39.9% vs. 16.7%, p < 0.001), and peripheral artery disease (34.1% vs. 8.0%, p < 0.001) in the IMPELLA-PL cohort. Intravascular ultrasound was more frequently used in the Impella-supported patients (44.2% vs. 25.4%, p = 0.002), while staged revascularization was more common among controls (30.4% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.007). At 1 year, rates of post-discharge all-cause mortality, stroke, and repeat coronary revascularization were similar in both groups. MI was less frequent in the IMPELLA-PL cohort (1.4% vs. 10.9%, p = 0.003), alongside a trend toward lower incidence of rehospitalizations for HF (9.4% vs. 18.1%, p = 0.055).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite an unfavorable cardiovascular risk profile, patients who underwent Impella-assisted HR-PCI had similar 1-year post-discharge survival, with a lower rate of MI, compared to propensity score-matched controls who underwent HR-PCI without MCS. Impella may improve HR-PCI outcomes in selected patients, but further randomized controlled trials are required to confirm this finding.
AIMS: We aimed to evaluate 1-year outcomes of Impella-assisted HR-PCI compared to HR-PCI without MCS.
METHODS: One hundred and thirty-eight patients undergoing Impella-assisted PCI, included in the IMPELLA-PL registry, were propensity score-matched with controls from the retrospective CardioSilesia registry who underwent HR-PCI without MCS. Study endpoints included 1-year post-discharge all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, rehospitalization for heart failure (HF), and repeat coronary revascularization.
RESULTS: Clinical and angiographic characteristics were comparable in both groups, with higher rates of dyslipidemia (78.3% vs. 37.7%, p < 0.001), chronic kidney disease (39.9% vs. 16.7%, p < 0.001), and peripheral artery disease (34.1% vs. 8.0%, p < 0.001) in the IMPELLA-PL cohort. Intravascular ultrasound was more frequently used in the Impella-supported patients (44.2% vs. 25.4%, p = 0.002), while staged revascularization was more common among controls (30.4% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.007). At 1 year, rates of post-discharge all-cause mortality, stroke, and repeat coronary revascularization were similar in both groups. MI was less frequent in the IMPELLA-PL cohort (1.4% vs. 10.9%, p = 0.003), alongside a trend toward lower incidence of rehospitalizations for HF (9.4% vs. 18.1%, p = 0.055).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite an unfavorable cardiovascular risk profile, patients who underwent Impella-assisted HR-PCI had similar 1-year post-discharge survival, with a lower rate of MI, compared to propensity score-matched controls who underwent HR-PCI without MCS. Impella may improve HR-PCI outcomes in selected patients, but further randomized controlled trials are required to confirm this finding.