Key result
Impella support is linked to improved two-year LV architecture, including higher LVEF and less LV dilation.
Why the study?
Little is known about the effect of microaxial mechanical circulatory support systems on long-term left ventricular valve structural integrity and left ventricular architecture.
Does microaxial mechanical circulatory support affect long-term structural integrity of left ventricular valves and LV architecture in patients with cardiogenic shock or undergoing high-risk PCI?
Cohort (n=84)
Does microaxial mechanical circulatory support affect long-term structural integrity of left ventricular valves and LV architecture in patients with cardiogenic shock or undergoing high-risk PCI?
p-value: p=≤0.03
Microaxial mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock or high-risk PCI is associated with improved LV architecture and function at two years, without detrimental effects on aortic or mitral valve integrity.
Although the use of microaxilar mechanical circulatory support systems may improve the outcome of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), little is known about its effect on the long-term structural integrity of left ventricular (LV) valves as well as on the development of LV-architecture. Therefore, we aimed to study the integrity of the LV valves and architecture and function after Impella support. Thus, 84 consecutive patients were monitored over two years having received ImpellaTM CP (n = 24) or 2.5 (n = 60) for refractory CS (n = 62) or for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (n = 22) followed by optimal medical treatment. Beside a significant increase in LV ejection fraction after two years (p ≤ 0.03 vs. pre-implantation), we observed a statistically significant decrease in LV dilation (p < 0.001) and severity of mitral valve regurgitation (p = 0.007) in the two-year follow-up period, suggesting an improved LV architecture. Neither the duration of support, nor the size of the Impella device or the indication for its use revealed any devastating impact on aortic or mitral valve integrity. These findings indicate that Impella device is a safe means of support of LV-function without detrimental long-term effects on the structural integrity of LV valves regardless of the size of the device or the indication of support.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chatzis et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Refractory cardiogenic shock or high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (n=84). Impella support (Impella CP or 2.5) vs. Pre-implantation baseline was evaluated on LV ejection fraction, LV dilation, and severity of mitral valve regurgitation (p=≤0.03). Impella support was associated with improved LV architecture at two years, including increased LV ejection fraction (p≤0.03) and decreased LV dilation (p<0.001) and mitral regurgitation (p=0.007).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: