Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jan 27;14(3):824.
doi: 10.3390/jcm14030824.

Evaluation of LVEDP Change During High-Risk PCI With and Without Impella Support (ELVIS)-A Pilot Trial

Affiliations

Evaluation of LVEDP Change During High-Risk PCI With and Without Impella Support (ELVIS)-A Pilot Trial

Juergen Leick et al. J Clin Med. .

Abstract

Background: The decision-making process to use percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in the context of elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HRPCI) is complex and evolving. The aim of this study is to evaluate the left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) as a parameter to identify patients that may benefit from a protected HRCPI (pHRPCI) procedure. Methods: Overall, 62 patients (pHRPCI n = 31 vs. non-pHRPCI n = 31) with a complex coronary artery disease and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% were included. The primary endpoint was defined as a change in LVEDP and its correlation with laboratory measurements. The secondary safety endpoint was a composite of the incidence of major in-hospital adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Results: Baseline characteristics were similar, including age (pHRPCI 72.8 ± 8.8 vs. non-pHRPCI 75.0 ± 10.4; p = 0.408), male (pHRPCI 83.9% vs. non-pHRPCI 96.8; p = 0.195), pre-PCI Syntax Score (pHRPCI 33.9 ± 13.1 vs. non-pHRPCI 35.4 ± 12; p = 0.643), post-PCI Syntax Score (pHRPCI 7.4 ± 6.2 vs. non-pHRPCI 9.6 ± 8.4; p = 0.239) and baseline LVEDP between the groups (pHRPCI 18.5 ± 10.5 mmHg vs. non-pHRPCI 15.7 ± 8.1 mmHg; p = 0.237). There was a trend to a lower LVEF in the pHRPCI group (26.4 ± 6.7% vs. 29.4 ± 5%; p = 0.051). The primary endpoint analysis revealed a significant change in LVEDP (pHRPCI -4.7 ± 9 mmHg vs. non-pHRPCI +3.1 ± 7.5 mmHg; p < 0.001) that did not correlate with changes in creatinine (p = 0.285), NT-proBNP (p = 0.383) or troponin (p = 0.639) concentrations within 24 h. Overall, low rates of in-hospital (pHRPCI 6.5% vs. non-pHRPCI 3.2%; p = 0.999) and 90-days (pHRPCI 12.9% vs. non-pHRPCI 12.9%; p = 0.999) MACCE were observed in both groups. Conclusions: Protected HRPCI leads to a significant reduction in LVEDP without influencing biomarkers of myocardial damage. There was no difference in MACCE rates between the groups.

Keywords: high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention; left ventricular end-diastolic pressure; percutaneous mechanical circulatory support.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

J.L. and N.W. received speaker honorarium from Boston Scientific, Shockwave Medical, and Abiomed (Johnson & Johnson). J.M.S.: Receipt of grants/research support: Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Proctor: Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Scientific Advisory Board: Abbott, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Medtronic. Receipt of speaker honoraria and/or travel expenses: Abbott, Abiomed, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Shockwave Medical, and Zoll.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study design. Abbreviations: cardiac output (CO); left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP); left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF); mean arterial blood pressure (MAP); non-protected high risk percutaneous coronary intervention (non-pHRPCI); protected high risk percutaneous coronary intervention (pHRPCI). pMCS = percutaneous mechanical circulatory support.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Primary endpoint analyses. (A) Primary outcome showing delta LVEDP between the pHRPCI and non-pHRPCI group. Changes in (B) creatinine (0 h and 24 h) and NT-proBNP (0 h and 12 h) from baseline LVEDP. (C) Changes in hs-cTnT (0 h and 24 h), creatinine (0 h and 24 h), and NT-proBNP (0 h and 12 h) from baseline LVEDP ≥19 mmHg. Abbreviations: hs-cTnT: high-sensitive cardiac troponin T; LVEDP: left ventricular end-diastolic pressure; NT-proBNP: N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide; non-pHRPCI: non-protected high risk percutaneous coronary intervention; pHRPCI: protected high risk percutaneous coronary intervention.

References

    1. O’Neill W.W., Anderson M., Burkhoff D., Grines C.L., Kapur N.K., Lansky A.J., Mannino S., McCabe J.M., Alaswad K., Daggubati R., et al. Improved outcomes in patients with severely depressed LVEF undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with contemporary practices. Am. Heart J. 2022;248:139–149. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2022.02.006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. O’Neill W.W., Kleiman N.S., Moses J., Henriques J.P., Dixon S., Massaro J., Palacios I., Maini B., Mulukutla S., Dzavik V., et al. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: The PROTECT II study. Circulation. 2012;126:1717–1727. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.098194. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Riley R.F., Henry T.D., Mahmud E., Kirtane A.J., Brilakis E.S., Goyal A., Grines C.L., Lombardi W.L., Maran A., Rab T., et al. SCAI position statement on optimal percutaneous coronary interventional therapy for complex coronary artery disease. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2020;96:346–362. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28994. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Leick J., Werner N., Mangner N., Panoulas V., Aurigemma C. Optimized patient selection in high-risk protected percutaneous coronary intervention. Eur. Heart J. Suppl. 2022;24((Suppl. J)):J4–J10. doi: 10.1093/eurheartjsupp/suac060. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ameloot K., Bastos M.B., Daemen J., Schreuder J., Boersma E., Zijlstra F., Van Mieghem N.M. New-generation mechanical circulatory support during high-risk PCI: A cross-sectional analysis. EuroIntervention. 2019;15:427–433. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-01126. - DOI - PubMed

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources