Clinical outcomes in patients undergoing complex high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention and hemodynamic support with an intra-aortic balloon versus an Impella pump: Real-life single-center preliminary results

Background: Patients and mechanical circulatory support assortment, as well as periprocedural and post-procedural clinical outcomes in complex high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) underpinned by percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVAD) are the subject of debate.Aims: The study aimed to identify differences between patients qualified for complex high-risk PCIs with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or Impella pump support and to compare peri-and post-procedural clinical outcomes.Methods: The presented analysis is a single-center study, which comprised consecutive patients undergoing complex high-risk PCIs performed with the pLVAD, either IABP or Impella. Patients included in the current analysis were recruited between January 2018 and December 2021. There were 28 (56%) patients in the Impella group and 22 (44%) in the IABP group. The primary endpoints included overall mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) such as all-cause mor-tality, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and cerebrovascular events.Results: Patients from the IABP group were significantly older, had higher left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and less frequent history of PCI, while the in-hospital risk of death assessed by EuroSCORE II remained similar in the Impella and IABP groups (median interquartile range [IQR] 2.8 [2-3.8] vs. 2.5 [1.8-5.2]; P = 0.73). Patients undergoing complex high-risk PCIs with pLVAD support presented similar results during the follow-up, assessed by log-rank estimates in terms of MACE (P = 0.41) and mortality rate (P = 0.65).Conclusions:The use of pLVAD devices in patients undergoing complex high-risk PCIs, with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, is a promising treatment option for patients disqualified from surgery by cardiac surgeons.