Abiomed Reports Results From Academic Medical Center's Three-Year Follow-up Of MACH II Trial
Main Category: Cardiovascular / CardiologyAlso Included In: Clinical Trials / Drug Trials; Heart Disease
Article Date: 25 Sep 2009 - 0:00 PDT
| Patient / Public: | ![]() | |
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
Abiomed Inc. (NASDAQ: ABMD), a leading provider of breakthrough heart support technologies, announced new clinical data from Academic Medical Center's (AMC) three-year follow-up results from patients in the Impella 2.5 arm of the MACH II trial, revealing improved left ventricular function, cardiac output and quality of life.
The MACH II trial, evaluating safety and feasibility in STEMI, included 20 patients; ten patients were treated with three days of Impella 2.5 support; ten control patients were treated with routine standard of care. The initial four-month results, which demonstrated significant recovery of left ventricular function in Impella 2.5 patients, were published in the Journal of American College of Cardiology in 2008.
The three-year follow-up results from MACH II were presented by Jose PS Henriques, M.D., Ph.D., Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, at the Abiomed customer evening symposium at TCT 2009. The results measured the three-year follow-up of 20 large anterior STEMI patients in the MACH II trial and demonstrated significant overall improvements in cardiac function as well as quality of life in the ten patients that received Impella 2.5 within the trial.
All patients were measured in an IRB-approved protocol that calculated echo results, exercise testing and quality of life, and showed the following results from core laboratory analysis and strict processes:
- Left ventricular ejection fraction in Impella 2.5 patients increased from 28% at the baseline, to 41% in the four-month analysis, to 51% at the three-year follow-up period. Left ventricular ejection fraction in the control patients increased from 40% at the baseline, to 45% after the four-month analysis to 47% at the three year analysis. Impella 2.5 patients continued to show improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction, demonstrating a net increase of 23 ejection fraction points while control patients only showed a net increase of 7 ejection fraction points.
- Significant benefit in exercise capacity was demonstrated stronger by Impella 2.5 patients, than control patients, which also improves the quality of life for the patient
- Impella 2.5 patients saw no effects on aortic valve at three-year follow-up
"The initial MACH II results demonstrated that Impella had sustained benefits at four months and the three-year analysis, showing a 10% increase in ejection fraction, is an even stronger indicator that this device will make a significant difference in AMI treatment," said Henriques. "Additionally, these findings could suggest that Impella 2.5 patients who have been discharged have higher rates of recovery and lower chances of hospital re-admittance."
Source
Abiomed
Visit our cardiovascular / cardiology section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
16 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/165142.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/165142.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.




