Key result
Impella-supported high-risk PCI shows similar 90-day MACCE rates in severe versus non-severe aortic stenosis.
Why the study?
Severe aortic stenosis increases adverse outcome risk during PCI, and the safety of Impella-supported HRPCI in patients with AS remains inadequately established.
Does Impella-supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention have similar safety and effectiveness across different levels of aortic stenosis severity?
Observational (n=594)
Yes
Does Impella-supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention have similar safety and effectiveness across different levels of aortic stenosis severity?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Impella-supported high-risk PCI appears safe and effective across all levels of aortic stenosis severity, with similar 90-day MACCE rates, though transfusion rates are higher in AS patients.
Background Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). While Impella-supported high-risk PCI (HRPCI) has demonstrated improved outcomes, its safety in patients with AS remains inadequately established. Objectives We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of Impella support in patients with AS undergoing HRPCI. Methods Patients from the PROTECT III study (NCT04136392), a single-arm, FDA-audited, multicenter investigation of Impella-supported HRPCI, were assessed. AS severity was classified as none/trivial, mild, moderate, or severe. The primary outcome was 90-day major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events [MACCE, defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, MI, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), and revascularization]. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital complications, stroke/TIA, and vascular complications requiring surgery. Results Of the 594 patients with available echocardiographic data, 490 had none/trivial AS, while 34, 24, and 46 had mild, moderate, or severe AS, respectively. Patients with AS were older, had fewer incidences of diabetes, were more likely to have left main disease, and had higher left ventricular ejection fraction. Severely calcified lesions and atherectomy were more frequent among patients with moderate or severe AS. No significant differences were observed in PCI-related complications, stroke/TIA, and 30-day or 90-day MACCE across AS severity groups. However, transfusion rates were higher in patients with AS. Conclusion In patients undergoing Impella-supported HRPCI, 90-day MACCE and PCI-related complications were similar across all levels of AS severity. These findings suggest that the procedure is safe in this complex, high-risk population. Clinical Trial Information Trial Name : The Global cVAD Study (cVAD). ClinicalTrial.gov URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04136392?term=cvad&draw=2&rank=2 . ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT04136392.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Velagapudi et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease (n=594). Impella-supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention vs. Non-severe aortic stenosis was evaluated on 90-day major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (p=0.19). Impella-supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention resulted in similar 90-day major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rates between patients with severe and non-severe aortic stenosis (7.3% vs. 14.4%, p=0.19).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: