Literature DB >> 22920912

Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.

Holger Thiele1, Uwe Zeymer, Franz-Josef Neumann, Miroslaw Ferenc, Hans-Georg Olbrich, Jörg Hausleiter, Gert Richardt, Marcus Hennersdorf, Klaus Empen, Georg Fuernau, Steffen Desch, Ingo Eitel, Rainer Hambrecht, Jörg Fuhrmann, Michael Böhm, Henning Ebelt, Steffen Schneider, Gerhard Schuler, Karl Werdan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In current international guidelines, intraaortic balloon counterpulsation is considered to be a class I treatment for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. However, evidence is based mainly on registry data, and there is a paucity of randomized clinical trials.
METHODS: In this randomized, prospective, open-label, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 600 patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction to intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP group, 301 patients) or no intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (control group, 299 patients). All patients were expected to undergo early revascularization (by means of percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery) and to receive the best available medical therapy. The primary efficacy end point was 30-day all-cause mortality. Safety assessments included major bleeding, peripheral ischemic complications, sepsis, and stroke.
RESULTS: A total of 300 patients in the IABP group and 298 in the control group were included in the analysis of the primary end point. At 30 days, 119 patients in the IABP group (39.7%) and 123 patients in the control group (41.3%) had died (relative risk with IABP, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.17; P=0.69). There were no significant differences in secondary end points or in process-of-care measures, including the time to hemodynamic stabilization, the length of stay in the intensive care unit, serum lactate levels, the dose and duration of catecholamine therapy, and renal function. The IABP group and the control group did not differ significantly with respect to the rates of major bleeding (3.3% and 4.4%, respectively; P=0.51), peripheral ischemic complications (4.3% and 3.4%, P=0.53), sepsis (15.7% and 20.5%, P=0.15), and stroke (0.7% and 1.7%, P=0.28).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation did not significantly reduce 30-day mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction for whom an early revascularization strategy was planned. (Funded by the German Research Foundation and others; IABP-SHOCK II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00491036.).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22920912     DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1208410

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  429 in total

1.  Use of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Management of Cardiogenic Shock Before and After the United Network for Organ Sharing Donor Heart Allocation System Changes.

Authors:  Anubodh S Varshney; David D Berg; Jason N Katz; Vivian M Baird-Zars; Erin A Bohula; Anthony P Carnicelli; Sunit-Preet Chaudhry; Jianping Guo; Patrick R Lawler; Jose Nativi-Nicolau; Shashank S Sinha; Jeffrey J Teuteberg; Sean van Diepen; David A Morrow
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 14.676

Review 2.  Defining the role for percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for medically refractory heart failure.

Authors:  Navin K Kapur; Marwan F Jumean
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2013-06

3.  Dynamic Modulation of Device-Arterial Coupling to Determine Cardiac Output and Vascular Resistance.

Authors:  Steven P Keller; Brian Y Chang; Qing Tan; Zhengyang Zhang; Ahmad El Katerji; Elazer R Edelman
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2020-04-13       Impact factor: 3.934

Review 4.  [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

5.  Predictors of intra-aortic balloon pump hemodynamic failure in non-acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  Steven Hsu; Swetha Kambhampati; Christopher M Sciortino; Stuart D Russell; Steven P Schulman
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 4.749

6.  Percutaneous Hemodynamic Support in PCI.

Authors:  Jason Hatch; Dmitri Baklanov
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2014-04

Review 7.  Cardiogenic Shock in Patients with Advanced Chronic Heart Failure.

Authors:  Cesar Y Guerrero-Miranda; Shelley A Hall
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2020 Jan-Mar

8.  The Use of Intra-aortic Balloon Pump in a Real-World Setting: A Comparison between Survivors and Nonsurvivors from Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated with IABP. The Jakarta Acute Coronary Syndrome Registry.

Authors:  Surya Dharma; Iwan Dakota; Isman Firdaus; Alexander J Wardeh; J Wouter Jukema
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2013-12

9.  [New options in the treatment of acute heart failure].

Authors:  A Link; M Böhm
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 0.743

Review 10.  Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices: A Novel Approach in the Management of Patients With Acute Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Kevin Ergle; Parham Parto; Selim R Krim
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2016
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.