Wall Motion Score Index in Revascularisation and Ventricular Recovery

Register or Login to View PDF Permissions
Permissions× For commercial reprint enquiries please contact Springer Healthcare:

For permissions and non-commercial reprint enquiries, please visit to start a request.

For author reprints, please email
Information image
Average (ratings)
No ratings
Your rating

Published online:

Support:The development of this supplement was funded by Abiomed.

Open Access:

This work is open access under the CC-BY-NC 4.0 License which allows users to copy, redistribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work is cited correctly.

Dr Romagnoli’s work examined the correlation between the extent of myocardial revascularisation and the functional recovery of the left ventricle (LV) in Impella-protected percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients. LV support is often used in complex and high risk indicated procedures/patients (CHIP). These patients generally present with both LV dysfunction and severe coronary artery disease (CAD), as indicated by a high British Cardiovascular Intervention Society myocardial jeopardy score (BCIS-JS). (The BCIS-JS is a simplified scoring system that classifies the extent of CAD by estimating the amount of myocardium at risk based on the location of coronary artery stenoses. The BCIS-JS is similar to the SYNTAX score, which also uses the number of coronary lesions and their complexity, location and functional impact on the vasculature to qualify the myocardium’s condition.1)

In patients with LV dysfunction and severe CAD, the risk of intraprocedural heart failure is the key factor driving the choice of Impella support in both acute and stable patients. Dr Romagnoli emphasised that the goals of using an Impella device are to reduce periprocedural complications and in-hospital mortality, as well as to achieve a more complete revascularisation regardless of anatomical complexity. Although there is clear clinical evidence to support these intraprocedural or in-hospital benefits,2–6 Dr Romagnoli noted the evidence for long-term benefit is still debated. Therefore, his group sought to determine whether the beneficial effects on procedural outcomes in protected PCI are consistent with functional LV ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement and recovery.

Dr Romagnoli and colleagues designed the ImpEco study, a prospective single-centre registry investigation. The primary goal of the study was to determine whether the acute procedural outcome of Impella-protected PCI in patients with LV dysfunction is associated with substantial LV recovery at follow-up. The study included 48 patients who required mechanical circulatory support during elective or urgent revascularisation. BCIS-JS was collected at the time of angiography, whereas the Wall Motion Index Score (WMSI) and LVEF were collected from transthoracic echocardiography at baseline and within 1 year after the procedure (mean follow-up time: 146 days [42–381]). Dr Romagnoli and colleagues combined the WMSI and BCIS-JS by analysing the changes in WMSI in each ventricular segment according to the segment’s revascularisation status according to the BCIS-JS.Almost all patients (97.9%) had multivessel disease. Both the BCIS-JS and SYNTAX scores were markedly reduced from preprocedural levels, with an overall revascularisation index of 76%. After a median follow-up of 4 months, echocardiographic results revealed no changes in LV end-diastolic and end-systolic diameters, indicating that the patients had not experienced negative remodelling. Conversely, LV end-systolic volume was significantly reduced and LVEF was significantly increased (Figure 1), indicating increased contractility and function. Diastolic function, represented by the E/A ratio, improved as well. The WMSI showed the most significant improvement at follow-up. Interestingly, the improvement was driven by the changes in the revascularised segments, with no change in the non-revascularised segments. The improvement in WMSI was proportional to the dysfunction at baseline and was correlated with the extent of revascularisation.

Left Ventricular Function Improvement After Revascularisation

Article image

Dr Romagnoli concluded that in patients with severe CAD and LV dysfunction, Impella support allowed for more extensive revascularisation. More complete revascularisation was associated with mid-term LV contractile recovery, in terms of both systolic and diastolic function. In addition, regional wall motion recovery was more evident in revascularised segments and was correlated with preprocedural dysfunction, which suggests the possibility of a multimodal imaging approach to optimise and personalise revascularisation strategies in patients with such complex presentations.


  1. Ong ATL, Serruys PW, Mohr FW, et al. The SYNergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with TAXus and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX) study. Am Heart J 2006;151:1194–204.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Dixon SR, Henriques JP, Mauri L, et al. A prospective feasibility trial investigating the use of the Impella 2.5 system in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention.e. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2009;2:91–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Flaherty MP, Pant S, Patel SV, et al. Hemodynamic support with a microaxial percutaneous left ventricular assist device (Impella) protects against acute kidney injury in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Circ Res 2017;120:692–700.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Généreux P, Palmerini T, Caixeta A, et al. Quantification and impact of untreated coronary artery disease after percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59:2165–74.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Mehta SR, Wood DA, Storey RF, et al. Complete revascularization with multivessel PCI for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1411–21 .
  6. Bainey KR, Engstrøm T, Smits PC, et al. Complete vs culprit-lesion-only revascularization for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA Cardiol 2020;5:881–8.
    Crossref | PubMed