[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-437251-105":59,"doc-detail-437251-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","safety-and-efficacy-of-percutaneous-ventricular-assist-device-vs-intra-aortic-balloon-pump-in-elective-high-risk-percutaneous-coronary-intervention-procedures","Safety and Efficacy of Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Elective High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Procedures","","This retrospective observational study compares outcomes for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HRPCI) supported by a percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) versus an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) using a large contemporary hospital administrative dataset. HRPCI patients treated between January 1, 2018 and April 30, 2024 were identified, exclusions applied, and variable-rate propensity score matching used across 87 preprocedural variables. Primary outcome was 90-day mortality, with secondary outcomes including MACCE, cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury, transfusions, length of stay, and discharge disposition.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/safety-and-efficacy-of-percutaneous-ventricular-assist-device-vs-intra-aortic-balloon-pump-in-elective-high-risk-percutaneous-coronary-intervention-procedures/437251/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/safety-and-efficacy-of-percutaneous-ventricular-assist-device-vs-intra-aortic-balloon-pump-in-elective-high-risk-percutaneous-coronary-intervention-procedures/437251.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Stanford","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-29",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":52},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"How were PVAD- and IABP-supported HRPCI patients selected and matched?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Patients undergoing HRPCI supported by PVAD or IABP between January 1, 2018 and April 30, 2024 were identified from the Premier Healthcare Database. Variable-rate propensity score matching was performed using 87 preprocedural variables, after excluding key groups such as those with cardiogenic shock/STEMI on admission and certain complex care patterns.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What was the primary endpoint used to compare PVAD versus IABP?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The primary endpoint was 90-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, new cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury at 30 days, in-hospital blood transfusions, length of stay, and discharge disposition.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What outcomes favored PVAD support compared with IABP support?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"After matching, PVAD support was associated with lower 90-day mortality (7.9% vs 11.8%), lower 90-day MACCE (10.3% vs 14.9%), less postprocedural cardiogenic shock (9.5% vs 23.5%), and less acute kidney injury (9.9% vs 15.6%). PVAD also shortened mean length of stay and increased likelihood of discharge to home, without significant differences in blood transfusions or vascular complications.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},437251,1790762067,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":52,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":34,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},2336477552062,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions 4 (2025) 103997  \nOriginal Research  \nSafety and Efficacy of Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Elective High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Procedures  \nTayyab Shah, MD a, b, Chantal Holy, MSc, PhD c, Ali Almedhychy, MDd, Jeffrey W. Moses, MD e, f, Helen Parise, ScD a, Alejandro Lemor, MD g, William W. O’Neill, MD h, Alexandra J. Lansky, MD a, *  \na Yale Cardiovascular Research Group, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; b Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; c Johnson & Johnson, Co, New Brunswick, New Jersey; d Johnson & Johnson Co., Danvers, Massachusetts; e NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York; f St. Francis Heart Center, Roslyn, New York; g University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi; h Henry Ford Hospital System, Detroit, Michigan  \n\n| A B S T R A C T |\n| --- |\n| Background: This study compares outcomes between percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD)-supported and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) -supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HRPCI) in a large-scale, contemporary hospital administrative dataset.\u003Cbr>Methods: Patients undergoing HRPCI supported by PVAD or IABP between January 1, 2018, and April 30, 2024, were identified in the Premier Healthcare Database. Patients were excluded if they had cardiogenic shock and/or STEMI on admission, received mechanical circulatory support and PCI on different days, required emergent procedures, had multiple mechanical circulatory support devices used, or received coronary artery bypass grafting surgery within the same admission. Variable rate propensity score matching was conducted with 87 preprocedural variables including patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, prior procedures, prior complications, and provider/hospital factors. The primary end point was the 90-day mortality, and secondary end points included major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), new cardiogenic shock, 30-day acute kidney injury, in-hospital blood transfusions, length of stay, and discharge disposition.\u003Cbr>Results: A total of 2416 patients who underwent PVAD-assisted HRPCI and 847 patients who underwent IABP-assisted HRPCI (mean age, 72 ± 10.4 years; 66% women; 19% non-White) were matched with good balance among all matched variables. Compared with those who received IABP support, those who received PVAD support had lower 90-day mortality (7.9% vs 11.8%; P = .01), lower 90-day major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (10.3% vs 14.9%; P \u003C .001), less postprocedural cardiogenic shock (9.5% vs 23.5%; P \u003C .001), and less acute kidney injury (9.9% vs 15.6%; P \u003C .001) . PVAD-supported patients had shorter mean lengths of stay (4.3 vs 5.7 days; P \u003C .001) and were more likely to be discharged to home. There were no significant differences in rates of blood transfusions (11.3% vs 10.3%; P = .43) or vascular complications between groups.\u003Cbr>Conclusions: This retrospective observational study suggests that PVAD-supported HRPCI in nonshock patients may be associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with IABP-supported HRPCI; however, future randomized trials are required to confirm this finding. |\n\nIntroduction  \nIn patients with high-risk lesions, comorbidities, or compromised hemodynamics, use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HRPCI) can mitigate  \nhemodynamic instability during procedures and allow for more complete revascularization.1–7 Percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVAD; eg, Impella; Abiomed) and intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) are commonly used in this setting, with most supported HRPCI cases using PVAD in contemporary practice.3 The PROTECT II randomized  \nDOI of","cbCain1hog7CxSuk","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCain1hog7CxSuk","pdf",2416953,"English","# Abstract\n## Background\n## Methods\n## Results\n## Conclusions\n# Introduction\n## Mechanical circulatory support in HRPCI\n## Prior randomized evidence and need for updated comparison","[{\"question\":\"How were PVAD- and IABP-supported HRPCI patients selected and matched?\",\"answer\":\"Patients undergoing HRPCI supported by PVAD or IABP between January 1, 2018 and April 30, 2024 were identified from the Premier Healthcare Database. Variable-rate propensity score matching was performed using 87 preprocedural variables, after excluding key groups such as those with cardiogenic shock/STEMI on admission and certain complex care patterns.\"},{\"question\":\"What was the primary endpoint used to compare PVAD versus IABP?\",\"answer\":\"The primary endpoint was 90-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, new cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury at 30 days, in-hospital blood transfusions, length of stay, and discharge disposition.\"},{\"question\":\"What outcomes favored PVAD support compared with IABP support?\",\"answer\":\"After matching, PVAD support was associated with lower 90-day mortality (7.9% vs 11.8%), lower 90-day MACCE (10.3% vs 14.9%), less postprocedural cardiogenic shock (9.5% vs 23.5%), and less acute kidney injury (9.9% vs 15.6%). PVAD also shortened mean length of stay and increased likelihood of discharge to home, without significant differences in blood transfusions or vascular complications.\"}]","Safety and Efficacy of Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Elective High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Procedures | PDF",1790680796,18]