English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Objective  To evaluate the role of the microaxial percutaneous mechanical circulatory support device (Impella® pump) implantation pre‐percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus during/after PCI in cardiogenic shock (CS) and high‐risk PCI populations.    Background  A better understanding of the safety and effectiveness of the Impella and the role of timing of this support initiation in specific clinical settings is of utmost clinical relevance.    Methods  A total of 365 patients treated with Impella 2.5/CP in the 17 centers of the IMP‐IT Registry were included. Through propensity‐score weighting (PSW) analysis, 1‐year clinical outcomes were assessed separately in CS and HR‐PCI patients, stratified by timing of Impella support.    Results  Pre‐procedural insertion was associated with an improvement in 1‐year survival in patients with CS due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treated with PCI ( p  = .04 before PSW,  p  = .009 after PSW) and HR‐PCI ( p  < .01 both before and after PSW). Among patients undergoing HR‐PCI, early Impella support was also associated with a lower rate of the composite of mortality, re‐hospitalization for heart failure, and need for left‐ventricular assist device/heart transplantation at 1‐year ( p  = .04 before PSW,  p  = .01 after PSW). Furthermore, Impella use during/after PCI was associated with an increased in‐hospital life‐threatening and severe bleeding among patients with AMI‐CS receiving PCI (7 vs. 16%,  p  = .1) and HR‐PCI (1 vs. 9%,  p  = .02).    Conclusions  Our findings suggested a survival benefit and reduced rates of major bleeding when a pre‐PCI Impella implantation instead of during‐after procedure was used in the setting of HR‐PCI and AMI‐CS.

Timing of Impella implantation and outcomes in cardiogenic shock or high‐risk percutaneous coronary revascularization