Hemodynamic support is widely utilized for unprotected left main (ULM) percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) despite lack of evidence from randomized studies and the risk of device-related complications. We aimed to compare ULMPCI with and without intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support. A single-center, retrospective analysis was performed for patients undergoing ULMPCI with and without IABP support. Clinical, procedural, in-hospital, and 30-day cardiovascular outcomes were compared. From 2003 through 2018, 217 patients underwent non-emergent ULMPCI, 55 with elective IABP support (IABP group), and 162 without support (No-IABP group). The study population comprised 56.4% men and 74.5% Caucasians in the IABP group and 53.7% men and 62.3% Caucasians in the No-IABP group. The mean age for IABP and No-IABP group patients was 75.75 ± 12.34 years and 73.47 ± 15.19 years, respectively (p = 0.315). Procedural success was achieved in 99% of IABP and 95.3% of No-IABP patients (p = 0.089). In-hospital and 30-day mortality was 5.5% for the IABP group and 5.6% for the No-IABP group (p = 0.977). Rates of major complications were statistically similar between the groups. Bailout IABP was required in 10% of No-IABP patients. Hospital and intensive care unit length of stay was statistically longer in the IABP group. In conclusion, ULMPCI without IABP support was not associated with increased mortality and major cardiovascular outcomes compared with supported patients and was associated with shorter hospital and intensive care unit stay. A randomized trial comparing unsupported versus supported ULMPCI is warranted to identify patients who would benefit from hemodynamic support.
Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.