Protect II, A Prospective, Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (PROTECT II)
This study has been terminated.
(Futility on primary endpoint.Study confounded by statistically significant differences between the two arms re: atherectomy, duration of support.)
Information provided by:
First received: November 19, 2007
Last updated: March 18, 2011
Last verified: March 2011
No Study Results Posted on ClinicalTrials.gov for this Study
|Study Status:||This study has been terminated.|
|Estimated Study Completion Date:||September 2011|
|Estimated Primary Completion Date:||April 2011 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)|
Publications automatically indexed to this study by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number):
Cohen MG, Matthews R, Maini B, Dixon S, Vetrovec G, Wohns D, Palacios I, Popma J, Ohman EM, Schreiber T, O'Neill WW. Percutaneous left ventricular assist device for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions: Real-world versus clinical trial experience. Am Heart J. 2015 Nov;170(5):872-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2015.08.009. Epub 2015 Aug 15.
Daubert MA, Massaro J, Liao L, Pershad A, Mulukutla S, Magnus Ohman E, Popma J, O'Neill WW, Douglas PS. High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with reverse left ventricular remodeling and improved outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease and reduced ejection fraction. Am Heart J. 2015 Sep;170(3):550-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2015.06.013. Epub 2015 Jun 26.
Kovacic JC, Kini A, Banerjee S, Dangas G, Massaro J, Mehran R, Popma J, O'Neill WW, Sharma SK. Patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease and impaired ventricular function undergoing PCI with Impella 2.5 hemodynamic support have improved 90-day outcomes compared to intra-aortic balloon pump: a sub-study of the PROTECT II trial. J Interv Cardiol. 2015 Feb;28(1):32-40. doi: 10.1111/joic.12166.
Henriques JP, Ouweneel DM, Naidu SS, Palacios IF, Popma J, Ohman EM, O'Neill WW. Evaluating the learning curve in the prospective Randomized Clinical Trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: a prespecified subanalysis of the PROTECT II study. Am Heart J. 2014 Apr;167(4):472-479.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.12.018. Epub 2014 Jan 3.
Dangas GD, Kini AS, Sharma SK, Henriques JP, Claessen BE, Dixon SR, Massaro JM, Palacios I, Popma JJ, Ohman M, Stone GW, O'Neill WW. Impact of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump on prognostically important clinical outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (from the PROTECT II randomized trial). Am J Cardiol. 2014 Jan 15;113(2):222-8. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.09.008.
O'Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, Henriques JP, Dixon S, Massaro J, Palacios I, Maini B, Mulukutla S, Dzavík V, Popma J, Douglas PS, Ohman M. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study. Circulation. 2012 Oct 2;126(14):1717-27. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.098194. Epub 2012 Aug 30.