Clinical evaluation of the Percor percutaneous intraaortic balloon: cooperative study of 722 cases

Clinical experience with the Percor percutaneous intraaortic balloon (IAB) was reviewed in 722 cases performed by 59 clinicians (35 surgeons and 24 cardiologists). Compared with standard IABs, Percor was judged to provide easier insertion by 88% of clinicians, easier femoral-iliac passage by 29%, easier aortic passage by 36%, and easier final positioning by 19%; the Percor IAB was rated more difficult in these respects by 2-5% of users; the rest of the responders found no significant difference in these measures. Technical problems included an inability to negotiate sclerotic vessels in 12.6%, delayed hemostasis in 1.9%, and the need for surgical repair of the arteriotomy site in 2%. Medical complications included peripheral ischemia in 5.3%, emboli in 3.6%, arterial dissection in 1.9%, dislodged arterial plaque in 1.1%, perforation of the arterial tree in 1.0%, local femoral thrombosis in 1.0%, and poor intraoperative hemostasis in 0.3%. Local wound infection, ischemic amputation or neuropathic sequelae were not reported. Mechanical counterpulsation with Pecor was equivalent to that of standard IABs, but by subjective judgments, 80% rated Percor more desirable and 47% safer; 3% rated it less desirable and 10% less safe. With Percor, earlier clinical use of IAB pumping was seen by 73%, and new or additional indications were recommended by 19%.