Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 6, 2026

The Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump
Published on: February 5, 2021
Impella Protected Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Outcomes Compared With Intra-aortic Balloon Pump: A Contemporary
Vasileios Panoulas1, Theodore Schreiber2, Stelios Tsintzos3
1Harefield Hospital, Guy's and St Thoma's NHS Foundation Trust, England; Cardiovascular Sciences, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, UK.
Insights
The Win Ratio analysis of pooled PROTECT-II and PROTECT-III data shows Impella® significantly improved high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes compared to intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) over 90 days.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Medicine
- Interventional Cardiology
- Biostatistics
Background:
- Traditional cardiovascular trial composite endpoints can obscure individual event importance.
- The Win Ratio (WR) is a modern statistical method addressing composite endpoint limitations.
- High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HRPCI) outcomes require nuanced evaluation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the efficacy of Impella® versus intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in HRPCI using the Win Ratio.
- To pool data from the PROTECT-II and PROTECT-III studies for a comprehensive analysis.
- To evaluate major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) with a hierarchical endpoint structure.
Main Methods:
- Pooled data from PROTECT-II RCT and PROTECT-III study patients meeting PROTECT-II criteria.
- Win Ratio analysis based on a 90-day hierarchy: Mortality, Stroke, Spontaneous MI, Re-Hospitalization, Peri-Procedural MI.
- Win statistics (WR, Net Benefit, Win Odds) calculated, including sub-analyses for complex cases and study cohorts.
Main Results:
- The primary analysis (719 Impella, 211 IABP) showed a WR of 1.691 favoring Impella (p<0.001).
- Significant Net Benefit (0.166, p<0.001) and Win Odds (1.398, p<0.001) also favored Impella.
- Sub-analyses, including complex PCI cases, consistently demonstrated Impella's benefit.
Conclusions:
- Pooled Win Ratio analysis confirms superior 90-day outcomes for Impella® compared to IABP in HRPCI.
- The Win Ratio provides a more clinically relevant assessment of device efficacy in complex cardiovascular interventions.
- Findings support Impella® as a preferred mechanical circulatory support device in high-risk PCI scenarios.
Abstract:
Traditional cardiovascular trials combine adverse events into composites, ignoring the clinical importance and weight of endpoints. The Win Ratio (WR) is a contemporary statistical technique overcoming these limitations. We aimed to evaluate outcomes of high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention supported with Impella versus intra-aortic balloon pump, by pooling data from the PROTECT-II and PROTECT-III studies, using the WR. All patients from PROTECT-II RCT (P-II) and patients from PROTECT-III (P-III) who met P-II inclusion/exclusion criteria were pooled. The WR was based on independently adjudicated major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 90 days with following hierarchy: (1) mortality; (2) stroke; (3) spontaneous myocardial infarction; (4) rehospitalization; and (5) peri-procedural myocardial infarction. All major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were analyzed as time-to-event outcomes, except peri-procedural myocardial infarction (binary endpoint). Sub-analyzes included: (1) complex cases: patients with atherectomy or unprotected left main or chronic total occlusion, (2) all patients excluding firsts from P-II (learning cases); and (3) Impella P-II and P-III cohorts separately. Win statistics (WR, net benefit, and win odds) were calculated. The primary analysis (719 Impella and 211 intra-aortic balloon pump-supported PCI) yielded a WR of 1.691 in favor of Impella (1.314 to 2.176, p < 0.001), with net benefit of 0.166 (0.084 to 0.247, p < 0.001) and win odds of 1.398 (1.187 to 1.645, p < 0.001). The WR, net benefit and win odds for complex cases remained statistically significant in favor of Impella. Excluding first patients resulted in increased win statistics compared to primary analysis. In conclusion, pooled WR analyzes from P-II and P-III studies demonstrated improved high risk PCI outcomes up to 90 days with Impella compared to intra-aortic balloon pump.
More Related Videos
06:10Utilizing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: June 12, 2021
07:39Use of a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device/Left Atrium to Femoral Artery Bypass System for Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: August 16, 2021