Search

(1) Background: Percutaneous left ventricle assist devices (pLVADs) demonstrated an improvement in mid-term clinical outcomes in selected patients with severely depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. However, the prognostic impact of in-hospital LVEF recovery is unclear. Accordingly, the present sub-analysis aims to evaluate the impact of LVEF recovery in both cardiogenic shock (CS) and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR PCI) supported with pLVADs in the IMP-IT registry. (2) Methods: A total of 279 patients (116 patients in CS and 163 patients in HR PCI) treated with Impella 2.5 or CP in the IMP-IT registry were included in this analysis, after excluding those who died while in the hospital or with missing data on LVEF recovery. The primary study objective was a composite of all-cause death, rehospitalisation for heart failure, left ventricle assist device (LVAD) implantation, or heart transplantation (HT), overall referred to as the major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year. The study aimed to evaluate the impact of in-hospital LVEF recovery on the primary study objective in patients treated with Impella for HR PCI and CS, respectively. (3) Results: The mean in-hospital change in LVEF was 10 ± 1% (p < 0.001) in the CS cohort and 3 ± 7% (p < 0.001) in the HR PCI group, achieved by 44% and 40% of patients, respectively. In the CS group, patients with less than 10% in-hospital LVEF recovery experienced higher rates of MACE at 1 year of follow-up (FU) (51% vs. 21%, HR 3.8, CI 1.7–8.4, p < 0.01). After multivariate analysis, LVEF recovery was the main independent protective factor for MACE at FU (HR 0.23, CI 0.08–0.64, p = 0.02). In the HR PCI group, LVEF recovery (>3%) was not associated with lower MACE at multivariable analysis (HR 0.73, CI 0.31–1.72, p = 0.17). Conversely, the completeness of revascularisation was found to be a protective factor for MACE (HR 0.11, CI 0.02–0.62, p = 0.02) (4) Conclusions: Significant LVEF recovery was associated with improved outcomes in CS patients treated with PCI during mechanical circulatory support with Impella, whereas complete revascularisation showed a significant clinical relevance in HR PCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of our study is to assess the predictors and the prognostic role of left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery after Impella-supported percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods: This retrospective, observational study included patients admitted for AMI who underwent Impella-supported PCI in two Italian high-volume cardiac catheterization laboratories. Only patients who underwent an echocardiographic assessment of left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) before the procedure (acute LVEF) and during follow-up (follow-up LVEF) were included in the present analysis. Patients with a baseline LVEF ≥40% were excluded from the present analysis. LVEF recovery was calculated as the difference between follow-up LVEF and acute LVEF. A delta ≥5% was considered significant and was used to define the responder group. Results: From April 2007 to December 2020, 64 consecutive patients were included in our study. A total of 55 patients (86%) received hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5, and 9 patients (14%) with Impella CP. Median LVEF at follow-up was significantly higher compared to baseline (36% (30–42) vs. 30% (24–33), p < 0.001). Based on LVEF recovery, 37 patients (57.8%) were deemed responders. According to multivariate analysis, complete functional revascularization was an independent predictor of a significant EF recovery (OR: 0.159; 95% CI: 0.038–0.668; p = 0.012). At three-year follow-up, lack of LVEF recovery was the only predictor of mortality (HR: 5.315; 95% CI: 1.100–25.676; p = 0.038). Conclusions: Functional complete revascularization is an independent predictor of the recovery of LVEF in patients presenting with AMI who underwent Impella-supported PCI. The recovery of LV function is associated with improved prognosis and could be used to stratify the risk of future events at long-term follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of percutaneous right ventricular assist devices (pRVADs) to support patients with right ventricular (RV)-predominant cardiogenic shock (CS) refractory to optimal medical therapy is increasing progressively, and the Impella RP is the first FDA-approved pRVAD in such a clinical scenario. The aim of the present study is to report the outcomes of patients treated with Impella RP in the IMP-IT (IMPella Mechanical Circulatory Support Device in Italy) registry, a multicenter registry that evaluated the trends in use and clinical outcomes of the Impella in the setting of CS and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention in Italy. A total of 15 patients who received Impella RP were enrolled. In 40% of the patients, the main cause was ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. A total of 40% of patients required biventricular support with a left Impella. Device-related complications were reported in 46.7% of patients. Overall, the in-hospital mortality was 46.7%, whereas the one-year mortality was 53.3%. The composite rate of all-cause death, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and heart transplant at one year was 60%. The Impella RP has favorable survival outcomes in RV-predominant cardiogenic shock. However, the device-related complications are frequent and should be carefully weighed when considering escalation to Impella RP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Up to 4 million patients with signs of myocardial ischemia have no obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). The absence of precise guidelines for diagnosis and treatment in non-obstructive CAD encourages the scientific community to fill the gap knowledge, to provide non-invasive and less expensive diagnostic tools. The aim of our study was to explore the biological profile of Ischemia with Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries (INOCA) patients with microvascular dysfunction compared to patients presenting with obstructive chronic coronary syndrome (ObCCS) in order to find specific hallmarks of each clinical condition. We performed a gene expression array from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) isolated from INOCA (n = 18) and ObCCS (n = 20) patients. Our results showed a significantly reduced gene expression of molecules involved in cell adhesion, signaling, vascular motion, and inflammation in INOCA as compared to the ObCCS group. In detail, we found lower expression of Platelet and Endothelial Cell Adhesion Molecule 1 (CD31, p < 0.0001), Intercellular Adhesion Molecule-1 (ICAM1, p = 0.0004), Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF p = 0.0003), Transferrin Receptor (TFRC, p = 0.002), and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A (VEGFA, p = 0.0006) in the INOCA group compared with ObCCS. Meanwhile, we observed an increased expression of Hyaluronidase (HYAL2, p < 0.0001) in INOCA patients in comparison to ObCCS. The distinct expression of molecular biomarkers might allow an early and non-invasive differential diagnosis between ObCCS and INOCA, improving clinical management and treatment options, in the era of personalized medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]