Key result
Preprocedural LVEDP shows no association with periprocedural hemodynamic deterioration or in-hospital MACCE.
Why the study?
Little is known about the usefulness of frequently measured LVEDP for predicting periprocedural hemodynamic deterioration in patients undergoing high-risk PCI.
Does preprocedural LVEDP predict periprocedural hemodynamic deterioration in non-shock patients undergoing high-risk PCI with Impella support?
Observational (n=64)
Does preprocedural LVEDP predict periprocedural hemodynamic deterioration in non-shock patients undergoing high-risk PCI with Impella support?
Preprocedural LVEDP does not predict periprocedural hemodynamic deterioration or in-hospital MACCE in non-shock patients undergoing high-risk PCI with Impella support.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
LVEDP does not predict periprocedural deterioration or MACCE in Impella-supported high-risk PCI; should not yet guide MCS selection in non-shock patients.
BACKGROUND: An increasing number of high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) are performed with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) to minimize the risk of periprocedural hemodynamic compromise. Prior studies have demonstrated that an elevated left-ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) is associated with worse outcome after acute myocardial infarction or cardiac surgery. Although LVEDP is frequently measured, little is known about the usefulness for predicting periprocedural hemodynamic deterioration in high-risk PCI. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of preprocedural measured LVEDP in non-shock patients undergoing high-risk PCI with MCS on periprocedural hemodynamic deterioration. METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed the PCI protocol and the Automated Impella Controller in a consecutive series of 64 patients (mean age 73 years, 80% male), who underwent high-risk PCI with Impella MCS (period 01/2017-12/2018). LVEDP (17 ± 8 mm Hg) was measured in all cases before Impella insertion and start of PCI. Periprocedural hemodynamic deterioration was defined as: systolic blood pressure (SBP) drop (decrease ≥20 mm Hg or ≤90 mm Hg), or transient loss of arterial pressure pulsatility. Hemodynamic deterioration occurred in 33% (n = 21) of all patients but did not lead to a hemodynamic compromise due to the Impella support. Regression analysis of LVEDP for periprocedural hemodynamic deterioration or in-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) showed no significant results. CONCLUSION: LVEDP was not associated with periprocedural hemodynamic deterioration or a higher rate of in-hospital MACCE. Our data propose that LVEDP may not be used as a risk stratification variable for MCS usage in non-shock patients undergoing high-risk PCI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Al‐Rashid et al. (2019) conducted an observational in High-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (n=64). Preprocedural left-ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) was evaluated on Periprocedural hemodynamic deterioration or in-hospital MACCE. Preprocedural left-ventricular end-diastolic pressure was not associated with periprocedural hemodynamic deterioration (which occurred in 33% of patients) or in-hospital MACCE.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: