Show simple item record

Sex‐related difference in the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients undergoing complex high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention: Insight from the cVAD registry

dc.contributor.authorAlraies, M Chadi
dc.contributor.authorKaki, Amir
dc.contributor.authorKajy, Marvin
dc.contributor.authorBlank, Nimrod
dc.contributor.authorHasan, Reema
dc.contributor.authorHtun, Wah Wah
dc.contributor.authorGlazier, James J.
dc.contributor.authorElder, Mahir
dc.contributor.authorO’Neill, William W.
dc.contributor.authorGrines, Cindy L.
dc.contributor.authorSchreiber, Theodore
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-01T23:29:58Z
dc.date.availableWITHHELD_12_MONTHS
dc.date.available2020-10-01T23:29:58Z
dc.date.issued2020-09-01
dc.identifier.citationAlraies, M Chadi; Kaki, Amir; Kajy, Marvin; Blank, Nimrod; Hasan, Reema; Htun, Wah Wah; Glazier, James J.; Elder, Mahir; O’Neill, William W.; Grines, Cindy L.; Schreiber, Theodore (2020). "Sex‐related difference in the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients undergoing complex high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention: Insight from the cVAD registry." Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 96(3): 536-544.
dc.identifier.issn1522-1946
dc.identifier.issn1522-726X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/162726
dc.description.abstractObjectiveTo assess the in‐hospital and short‐term outcome differences between males and females who underwent high‐risk PCI with mechanical circulatory support (MCS).BackgroundSex differences have been noted in several percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) series with females less likely to be referred for PCI due increased risk of adverse events. However, data on sex differences in utilization and outcomes of high‐risk PCI with MCS is scarce.MethodsUsing the cVAD Registry, we identified 1,053 high‐risk patients who underwent PCI with MCS using Impella 2.5 or Impella CP. Patients with cardiogenic shock were excluded. A total of 792 (75.21%) males and 261 (24.79%) females were included in the analysis with median follow‐up of 81.5 days.ResultsFemales were more likely to be African American, older (72.05 ± 11.66 vs. 68.87 ± 11.17, p < .001), have a higher prevalence of diabetes (59.30 vs. 49.04%, p = .005), renal insufficiency (35.41 vs. 27.39%, p = .018), and peripheral vascular disease (31.89 vs. 25.39%, p of .05). Women had a higher mean STS score (8.21 ± 8.21 vs. 5.04 ± 5.97, p < .001) and lower cardiac output on presentation (3.64 ± 1.30 vs. 4.63 ± 1.49, p < .001). Although women had more comorbidities, there was no difference in in‐hospital mortality, stroke, MI or need for recurrent revascularization compared to males. Females were more likely to have multivessel revascularization than males. Ejection fraction improved in both males and females at the time of discharge (26.59 to 31.40% and 30.75 to 36.05%, respectively, p < .0001). However, females had higher rate of bleeding requiring transfusion compared with males (9.58 vs. 5.30%, p = .019).ConclusionFemale patients undergoing high PCI were older and had more comorbidities but had similar outcomes compared to males.
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.
dc.subject.othergender outcomes
dc.subject.othermechanical circulatory support
dc.subject.otherpercutaneous coronary intervention
dc.subject.othercomplex high‐risk indicated patients
dc.titleSex‐related difference in the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients undergoing complex high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention: Insight from the cVAD registry
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollow
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMedicine (General)
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciences
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Reviewed
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/162726/2/ccd28509_am.pdfen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/162726/1/ccd28509.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/ccd.28509
dc.identifier.sourceCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFlaherty MP, Pant S, Patel SV, et al. Hemodynamic support with a microaxial percutaneous left ventricular assist device (Impella) protects against acute kidney injury in patients undergoing high‐risk percutaneous coronary InterventionNovelty and significance. Circ Res. 2017; 120 ( 4 ): 692 ‐ 700.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRatnaparkhi D, Mahajan T, Jadhav V. Heart disease prediction system using data mining technique. Int Res J Engine Technol (IRJET). 2015; 2 ( 08 ): 2395 ‐ 0056.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLevine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 58 ( 24 ): e44 ‐ e122.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBecher T, Baumann S, Eder F, et al. Akin I. Comparison of peri and post‐procedural complications in patients undergoing revascularisation of coronary artery multivessel disease by coronary artery bypass grafting or protected percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2017; 8 ( 4 ): 360 ‐ 368.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDixon SR, Henriques JP, Mauri L, et al. A prospective feasibility trial investigating the use of the Impella 2.5 system in patients undergoing high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention (the PROTECT I trial): initial U.S. experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009; 2 ( 2 ): 91 ‐ 96.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSjauw KD, Konorza T, Erbel R, et al. Supported high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device the Europella registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 54 ( 25 ): 2430 ‐ 2434.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMaini B, Naidu SS, Mulukutla S, et al. Real‐world use of the Impella 2.5 circulatory support system in complex high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the USpella registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 80 ( 5 ): 717 ‐ 725.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceO’neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 TM versus intra‐aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study. Circulation. 2012; 126 ( 14 ): 1717 ‐ 1727.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGharacholou SM, Alexander KP, Chen AY, et al. Implications and reasons for the lack of use of reperfusion therapy in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction: findings from the CRUSADE initiative. Am Heart J. 2010; 159 ( 5 ): 757 ‐ 763.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGlaser R, Herrmann HC, Murphy SA, et al. Benefit of an early invasive management strategy in women with acute coronary syndromes. JAMA. 2002; 288 ( 24 ): 3124 ‐ 3129.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBlomkalns AL, Chen AY, Hochman JS, et al. Gender disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of non–ST‐segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: large‐scale observations from the CRUSADE (can rapid risk stratification of unstable angina patients suppress adverse outcomes with early implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines) national quality improvement initiative. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 45 ( 6 ): 832 ‐ 837.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWong SC, Sleeper LA, Monrad ES, et al. Absence of gender differences in clinical outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a report from the SHOCK trial registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 38 ( 5 ): 1395 ‐ 1401.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFengler K, Fuernau G, Desch S, et al. Gender differences in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a substudy of the IABP‐SHOCK II‐trial. Clin Res Cardiol. 2015; 104 ( 1 ): 71 ‐ 78.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVetrovec GW, Anderson M, Schreiber T, et al. The cVAD registry for percutaneous temporary hemodynamic support: a prospective registry of Impella mechanical circulatory support use in high‐risk PCI, cardiogenic shock, and decompensated heart failure. Am Heart J. 2018; 199: 115 ‐ 121.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceO’neill WW, Schreiber T, Wohns DH, et al. The current use of Impella 2.5 in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the USpella registry. J Interv Cardiol. 2014; 27 ( 1 ): 1 ‐ 11.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSauren LD, Accord RE, Hamzeh K, et al. Combined Impella and intra‐aortic balloon pump support to improve both ventricular unloading and coronary blood flow for myocardial recovery: an experimental study. Artif Organs. 2007; 31 ( 11 ): 839 ‐ 842.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSeyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, et al. A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra‐aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 52 ( 19 ): 1584 ‐ 1588.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKawashima D, Gojo S, Nishimura T, et al. Left ventricular mechanical support with Impella provides more ventricular unloading in heart failure than extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. ASAIO J. 2011; 57 ( 3 ): 169 ‐ 176.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMeyns B, Stolinski J, Leunens V, Verbeken E, Flameng W. Left ventricular support by catheter‐mountedaxial flow pump reduces infarct size. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 41 ( 7 ): 1087 ‐ 1095.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKhera R, Cram P, Vaughan‐Sarrazin M, Horwitz PA, Girotra S. Use of mechanical circulatory support in percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States. Am J Cardiol. 2016; 117 ( 1 ): 10 ‐ 16.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGaffar R, Habib B, Filion KB, Reynier P, Eisenberg MJ. Optimal timing of complete revascularization in acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017; 6 ( 4 ): e005381.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGershlick AH, Khan JN, Kelly DJ, et al. Randomized trial of complete versus lesion‐only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and multivessel disease: the CvLPRIT trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65 ( 10 ): 963 ‐ 972.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRosner GF, Kirtane AJ, Genereux P, et al. Impact of the presence and extent of incomplete angiographic revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes: the ACUITY trial. Circulation. 2012; 125 ( 21 ): 2613 ‐ 2620.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVaidya SR, Devarapally SR, Arora S. Infarct related artery only versus complete revascularization in ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction and multi vessel disease: a meta‐analysis. Cardiovasc Diag Ther. 2017; 7 ( 1 ): 16.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDoshi R, Singh A, Jauhar R, Meraj PM. Gender difference with the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients undergoing complex high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention: from pVAD working group. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2018; 8 ( 4 ): 369 ‐ 378.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceInvestigators S. Coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (the stent or surgery trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002; 360 ( 9338 ): 965 ‐ 970.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHannan EL, Wu C, Walford G, et al. Drug‐eluting stents vs. coronary‐artery bypass grafting in multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358 ( 4 ): 331 ‐ 341.
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJoseph SM, Brisco MA, Colvin M, Grady KL, Walsh MN, Cook JL. Gen VADWG. Women with cardiogenic shock derive greater benefit from early mechanical circulatory support: an update from the cVAD registry. J Interv Cardiol. 2016; 29 ( 3 ): 248 ‐ 256.
dc.identifier.citedreferencePristipino C, Pelliccia F, Granatelli A, et al. Comparison of access‐related bleeding complications in women versus men undergoing percutaneous coronary catheterization using the radial versus femoral artery. Am J Cardiol. 2007; 99 ( 9 ): 1216 ‐ 1221.
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.