Literature DB >> 22266974

Hemodynamic effects of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the prospective, randomized IABP shock trial.

Roland Prondzinsky1, Susanne Unverzagt, Martin Russ, Henning Lemm, Michael Swyter, Nikolas Wegener, Ute Buerke, Uwe Raaz, Henning Ebelt, Axel Schlitt, Konstantin Heinroth, Johannes Haerting, Karl Werdan, Michael Buerke.   

Abstract

We conducted the IABP Cardiogenic Shock Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT00469248) as a prospective, randomized, monocentric clinical trial to determine the hemodynamic effects of additional intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) treatment and its effects on severity of disease in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation is recommended in patients with CS complicating myocardial infarction. However, there are only limited randomized controlled trial data available supporting the efficacy of IABP following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and its impact on hemodynamic parameters in patients with CS. Percutaneous coronary intervention of infarct-related artery was performed in 40 patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by CS, within 12 h of onset of hemodynamic instability. Serial hemodynamic parameters were determined over the next 4 days and compared in patients receiving medical treatment alone with those treated with additional intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. There were no significant differences among severity of disease (i.e., Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score) initially and no differences among both groups for disease improvement. We observed significant temporal improvements of cardiac output (4.8 ± 0.5 to 6.0 ± 0.5 L/min), systemic vascular resistance (926 ± 73 to 769 ± 101 dyn · s(-1) · cm(-5)), and the prognosis-validated cardiac power output (0.78 ± 0.06 to 1.01 ± 0.2 W) within the IABP group. However, there were no significant differences between the IABP group and the medical-alone group. Additional IABP treatment did not result in a significant hemodynamic improvement compared with medical therapy alone in a randomized prospective trial in patients with CS following PCI. Therefore, the use and recommendation for IABP treatment in CS remain unclear.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22266974     DOI: 10.1097/SHK.0b013e31824a67af

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Shock        ISSN: 1073-2322            Impact factor:   3.454


  33 in total

Review 1.  [Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation. Do we still need it and if so when?].

Authors:  M Russ
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 0.840

2.  Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation and microcirculation in cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: an IABP-SHOCK II substudy.

Authors:  Christian Jung; Georg Fuernau; Suzanne de Waha; Ingo Eitel; Steffen Desch; Gerhard Schuler; Hans R Figulla; Holger Thiele
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 3.  Cellular responses to mild heat stress.

Authors:  H G Park; S I Han; S Y Oh; H S Kang
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 9.261

4.  Epinephrine and short-term survival in cardiogenic shock: an individual data meta-analysis of 2583 patients.

Authors:  Valentine Léopold; Etienne Gayat; Romain Pirracchio; Jindrich Spinar; Jiri Parenica; Tuukka Tarvasmäki; Johan Lassus; Veli-Pekka Harjola; Sébastien Champion; Faiez Zannad; Serafina Valente; Philip Urban; Horng-Ruey Chua; Rinaldo Bellomo; Batric Popovic; Dagmar M Ouweneel; José P S Henriques; Gregor Simonis; Bruno Lévy; Antoine Kimmoun; Philippe Gaudard; Mir Babar Basir; Andrej Markota; Christoph Adler; Hannes Reuter; Alexandre Mebazaa; Tahar Chouihed
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 5.  Management of refractory cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  Alex Reyentovich; Maya H Barghash; Judith S Hochman
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 32.419

6.  Myocardial protection of early extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock in pigs.

Authors:  Gang-jie Zhu; Li-na Sun; Xing-hai Li; Ning-fu Wang; Hong-hai Wu; Chen-xing Yuan; Qiao-qiao Li; Peng Xu; Ya-qi Ren; Bao-gen Mao
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2014-09-27       Impact factor: 2.037

Review 7.  [Mechanical support in cardiogenic shock].

Authors:  T Graf; H Thiele
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 1.443

Review 8.  [Cardiac support and replacement systems].

Authors:  T Graf; H Thiele
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 0.840

9.  IABP plus ECMO-Is one and one more than two?

Authors:  Sebastian Nuding; Karl Werdan
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 10.  [Infarct-related cardiogenic shock : Prognosis and treatment].

Authors:  R Prondzinsky; H Lemm; A Geppert; M Buerke; M Russ; K Werdan
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 0.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.