Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Publication Title
The American journal of cardiology
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2-15-2023
Keywords
oregon; portland; Humans; Middle Aged; Aged; Treatment Outcome; Risk Factors; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Stroke Volume; Ventricular Function, Left; Registries; Coronary Angiography; Coronary Occlusion; Chronic Disease
Abstract
The use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has received limited study. We analyzed the clinical and angiographic characteristics, and procedural outcomes of 7,171 CTO PCIs performed between 2012 and 2021 at 35 international centers. Mean age was 64.5 ± 10 years, mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 50 ± 13%. MCS was used in 4.5%, prophylactically in 78.7%, and urgently in 21.3%. The most common type of MCS overall was Impella CP (Abiomed) (55.5%), followed by intra-aortic balloon pump (14.8%) and TandemHeart (LivaNova Inc.) (10.0%). Prophylactic MCS patients were more likely to have diabetes mellitus (55% vs 42%, p <0.001) and had more complex lesions compared with cases without prophylactic MCS (Japan-CTO score: 2.80 ± 1.22 vs 2.39 ± 1.27, p <0.001). Cases with prophylactic MCS had similar technical (86% vs 87%, p = 0.643) but lower procedural (80% vs 86%, p = 0.028) success rates and higher rates of periprocedural major cardiac adverse events compared with no prophylactic MCS use (6.55% vs 1.68%, p <0.001). Urgent MCS use was associated with lower technical (68% vs 87%, p <0.001) and procedural (39% vs 86%, p <0.001) success rates and higher major cardiac adverse events compared with no-MCS use (32.26% vs 1.68%, p <0.001). The differences persisted in multivariable analyses. In summary, in this contemporary multicenter registry, MCS was used in 4.5% of CTO PCIs, mostly prophylactically (78.7%). Elective MCS cases had similar technical success but a higher risk of complications. Urgent MCS cases had lower technical and procedural success and higher periprocedural major complication rates.
Clinical Institute
Cardiovascular (Heart)
Specialty/Research Institute
Cardiology
Specialty/Research Institute
Endocrinology
DOI
10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.10.049
