One-Year Outcomes of High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Interventions With Versus Without Mechanical Circulatory Support: Propensity Score-Matched Analysis
- Journal
- Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions (Q1)
- Published
- 28 July 2026
- Study design
- Randomized controlled trial
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
- Authors
- Aleksandra Gąsecka, Arkadiusz Pietrasik, Tomasz Pawłowski, Jakub Michal Zimodro, Daniel Cieśla, Jerzy Sacha, et al.
- PMID
- 42516021
- DOI
- 10.1002/ccd.70749
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine (top studies of the week, 2 August 2026).
- Picked for Radiology, Radiation Oncology, Nuclear Medicine, Medical Physics and Imaging (top studies of the week, 2 August 2026): High-quality evidence in a top journal
- Picked for Neurology (clinical) (top studies of the week, 2 August 2026).
Abstract
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.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.