Improved Outcomes in Patients with Severely Depressed LVEF Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Contemporary Practices: Impella-Supported High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Severely Depressed LVEF
American heart journal
2022
- 8Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage8
- Abstract Views8
Article Description
BACKGROUND: Contemporary practices for hemodynamically supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HRPCI) have evolved over the last decade. This study sought to compare outcomes of the prospective, multicenter, PROTECT III study to historic patients treated with Impella in the PROTECT II randomized controlled trial (RCT).METHODS: Of 1,134 patients enrolled in PROTECT III from March 2017 to March 2020, 504 were "PROTECT II-like" (met eligibility for PROTECT II RCT) and are referred to as PROTECT III for comparative analysis. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), comprising all-cause mortality, stroke/transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat revascularization, were compared at hospital discharge and 90 days.RESULTS: Compared with PROTECT II (N=216), PROTECT III patients were less often Caucasian (77.1% vs 83.8%, p=0.045), with less prior CABG (13.7% vs 39.4%; p<0.001) and prior MI (40.7% vs 69.3%; p<0.001). More PROTECT III patients underwent rotational atherectomy (37.1% vs 14.8%, p<0.001) and duration of support was longer (median 1.6 vs 1.3 hours; p<0.001), with greater improvement achieved in myocardial ischemia jeopardy scores (7.0±2.4 vs 4.4±2.9; p<0.001) and SYNTAX scores (21.4±10.8 vs 15.7±9.5; p<0.001). In-hospital bleeding requiring transfusion was significantly lower in PROTECT III (1.8% vs 9.3%; p<0.001), as was procedural hypotension (2.2% vs 10.1%; p<0.001) and cardiopulmonary resuscitation or ventricular arrhythmia (1.6% vs 6.9%; p<0.001). At 90 days, MACCE was 15.1% and 21.9% in PROTECT III and PROTECT II, respectively (p=0.037). Following propensity score matching, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed improved 90-day MACCE rates in PROTECT III (10.4% vs 16.9%, p=0.048).CONCLUSIONS: The PROTECT III study demonstrates improved completeness of revascularization, less bleeding, and improved 90-day clinical outcomes compared to PROTECT II for Impella-supported HRPCI among patients with severely depressed LVEF.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know