One‐Year Outcomes of High‐Risk Percutaneous Coronary Interventions With Versus Without Mechanical Circulatory Support: Propensity Score‐Matched Analysis
BACKGROUND: Impella is increasingly used as mechanical circulatory support (MCS) during high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (HR-PCI). Registry-based data provide insights into the efficacy and safety of Impella-assisted HR-PCI. AIMS: We aimed to evaluate 1-year outcomes of Impella-assisted HR-PCI compared to HR-PCI without MCS. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-eight patients undergoing Impella-assisted PCI, included in the IMPELLA-PL registry, were propensity score-matched with controls from the retrospective CardioSilesia registry who underwent HR-PCI without MCS. Study endpoints included 1-year post-discharge all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, rehospitalization for heart failure (HF), and repeat coronary revascularization. RESULTS: Clinical and angiographic characteristics were comparable in both groups, with higher rates of dyslipidemia (78.3% vs. 37.7%, p < 0.001), chronic kidney disease (39.9% vs. 16.7%, p < 0.001), and peripheral artery disease (34.1% vs. 8.0%, p < 0.001) in the IMPELLA-PL cohort. Intravascular ultrasound was more frequently used in the Impella-supported patients (44.2% vs. 25.4%, p = 0.002), while staged revascularization was more common among controls (30.4% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.007). At 1 year, rates of post-discharge all-cause mortality, stroke, and repeat coronary revascularization were similar in both groups. MI was less frequent in the IMPELLA-PL cohort (1.4% vs. 10.9%, p = 0.003), alongside a trend toward lower incidence of rehospitalizations for HF (9.4% vs. 18.1%, p = 0.055). CONCLUSIONS: Despite an unfavorable cardiovascular risk profile, patients who underwent Impella-assisted HR-PCI had similar 1-year post-discharge survival, with a lower rate of MI, compared to propensity score-matched controls who underwent HR-PCI without MCS. Impella may improve HR-PCI outcomes in selected patients, but further randomized controlled trials are required to confirm this finding.
Authors
- Aleksandra Gąsecka (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5083-7587)
- Arkadiusz Pietrasik (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4876-8858)
- Krzysztof Dyrbuś (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1323-1089)
- Grzegorz Smołka (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2031-822X)
- Katarzyna Mizia‐Stec (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6907-2799)
- Marek Grygier (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1134-7099)
- Jerzy Sacha (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7504-7506)
- Jakub Michał Zimodro (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2405-8982)
- Andrzej Świątkowski (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6427-5439)
- Mateusz Tajstra (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4145-5485)
- Tomasz Pawłowski
- Zbigniew Kalarus
- Janusz Kochman
- Daniel Cieśla
- Wojciech Wojakowski
- Paweł Francuz
- Mariusz Gąsior
Institutions
- Opole University of Technology (PL)
- Poznan University of Medical Sciences (PL)
- Medical University of Silesia (PL)
- University of Opole (PL)
- Medical University of Warsaw (PL)
- Ministry of Interior and Administration (PL)
- Silesian Center for Heart Disease (PL)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
- Published
- 2026-07-28
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.70749
- Primary Topic
- Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00