Percutaneous cardiopulmonary support-supported percutaneous coronary intervention: a single center experience
- PMID: 21779281
- PMCID: PMC3132690
- DOI: 10.4070/kcj.2011.41.6.299
Percutaneous cardiopulmonary support-supported percutaneous coronary intervention: a single center experience
Abstract
Background and objectives: Percutaneous cardiopulmonary support (PCPS) has proven to be a valuable technique in high-risk coronary patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, there have been few studies on PCI associated with PCPS in Korea. We summarized our experience with PCPS-supported PCI.
Subjects and methods: We retrospectively reviewed 19 patients with PCPS-supported PCI between August 2005 and June 2009. PCPS was used as an elective procedure for 10 patients with at least two of the following conditions: left-ventricular ejection fraction <35%, target vessel(s) supplying more than 50% of the viable myocardium, high risk surgical patients, and patients who refused coronary bypass surgery. In the remaining 9 patients PCPS was used as an emergency procedure, to stabilize and even resuscitate patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock, in order to attempt urgent PCI.
Results: Among the 19 patients who were treated with PCPS-supported PCI, 11 (57.9%) survived and 8 (42.1%) patients did not. ST elevation myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock was more prevalent in the non-survivors than in the survivors (75% vs. 27.3%, p=0.04). The elective PCPS-supported PCI was practiced more frequently in the survivors than in the non-survivors (72.7% vs. 25%, p=0.04). In the analysis of the event-free survival curve between elective and emergency procedures, there was a significant difference in the survival rate (p=0.025). Among the survivors there were more patients with multi-vessel disease, but a lower Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction grade in the culprit lesions was detected in the non-survivors, before PCI. Although we studied high-risk patients, there was no procedure-related mortality.
Conclusion: Our experience suggests that PCPS may be helpful in high risk patients treated with PCI, especially in elective cases. More aggressive and larger scale studies of PCPS should follow.
Keywords: Shock, cardiogenic.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.
Figures
References
-
- Hill J, O'Brient T, Murray J, et al. Prolonged extracorporeal oxygenation for acute post-traumatic respiratory failure (shock-lung syndrome). Use of the Bramson membrane lung. N Engl J Med. 1972;286:629–634. - PubMed
-
- Phillips S, Zeff R, Kongtahworn C, et al. Percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass: application and indication for use. Ann Thorac Surg. 1989;47:121–123. - PubMed
-
- Sawa Y. Percutaneous extracorporeal cardiopulmonary support: current practice and its role. J Artif Organs. 2005;8:217–221. - PubMed
-
- Marasco SF, Lukas G, McDonald M, McMillan J, Ihle B. Review of ECMO (Extra Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation) support in critically ill adult patients. Heart Lung Circ. 2008;17(Suppl 4):S41–S47. - PubMed
-
- Vogel RA, Tommaso CL, Gundry SR. Initial experience with coronary angioplasty and aortic valvuloplasty using elective semipercutaneous cardiopulmonary support. Am J Cardiol. 1988;62:811–813. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous