These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of the use of hemodynamic support in patients ≥80 years versus patients <80 years during high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (from the Multicenter PROTECT II Randomized Study).
    Author: Pershad A, Fraij G, Massaro JM, David SW, Kleiman NS, Denktas AE, Wilson BH, Dixon SR, Ohman EM, Douglas PS, Moses JW, O'Neill WW.
    Journal: Am J Cardiol; 2014 Sep 01; 114(5):657-64. PubMed ID: 25037676.
    Abstract:
    The outcomes of hemodynamic support during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention in the very elderly are unknown. We sought to compare outcomes between the patients ≥80 years versus patients <80 years enrolled in the PROTECT II (Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial of Hemodynamic Support with the Impella 2.5 versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Patients undergoing High Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) randomized trial. Patients who underwent high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with an unprotected left main or last patent conduit and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% or with 3-vessel disease and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤30% were randomized to receive an intra-aortic balloon pump or the Impella 2.5; 90-day (or the longest follow-up) outcomes were compared between patients ≥80 years (n = 59) and patients <80 years (n = 368). At 90 days, the composite end point of major adverse events and major adverse cerebral and cardiac events were similar between patients ≥80 and <80 years (45.6% vs 44.1%, p = 0.823, and 23.7% vs 26.8%, p = 0.622, respectively). There were no differences in death, stroke, or myocardial infarction rates between the 2 groups, but fewer repeat revascularization procedures were required in patients ≥80 years (1.7% vs 10.4%, p = 0.032). Bleeding and vascular complication rates were low and comparable between the 2 age groups (3.4% vs 2.4%, p = 0.671, and 6.8% vs 5.4%, p = 0.677, respectively). Multivariate analysis confirmed that age was not an independent predictor of major adverse events (odds ratio = 1.031, 95% confidence interval 0.459-2.315, p = 0.941), whereas Impella 2.5 was an independent predictor for improved outcomes irrespective of age (odds ratio = 0.601, 95% confidence interval 0.391-0.923, p = 0.020). In conclusion, the use of percutaneous circulatory support is reasonable and feasible in a selected octogenarian population with similar outcomes as those of younger selected patients. Irrespective of age, the use of Impella 2.5 was an independent predictor of favorable outcomes.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]