OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether the elective insertion of an intra-aortic balloon counter pulsation (IABP) device at the time of myocardial revascularization in patients presenting with an acute anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) without cardiogenic shock has any impact on the in-hospital rate of cardiac mortality. BACKGROUND: The role of IABP in patients presenting with an acute MI without cardiogenic shock remains ill defined. METHODS: The present study comprised 605 consecutive patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention for an anterior STEMI without cardiogenic shock. Patients who received IABP at the time of their coronary revascularization (n=105) were compared to those who had not (n=500). Patients with stable angina, unstable angina, non-STEMI, non-anterior STEMI, and cardiogenic shock were excluded. RESULTS: The two cohorts were well matched for the conventional risk factors for coronary artery disease. Although the left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly lower in the patients who received IABP (0.32±0.11 vs. 0.39±0.12; P<0.001), the two cohorts were well matched for history of MI, coronary revascularization, and chronic renal impairment. Following propensity scoring, the in-hospital rate of cardiac death was similar between the two cohorts (5.6% vs. 0%; P=.12) as was the rate of vascular complications. Major bleeding was significantly greater in the IABP cohort (10.0% vs. 0%; P=.01) leading to a greater transfusion requirement (14.9% vs. 2.9%; P=.01). CONCLUSION: The adjunctive use of an IABP in patients presenting with an acute anterior STEMI without cardiogenic shock may not be associated with an in-hospital mortality benefit.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether the elective insertion of an intra-aortic balloon counter pulsation (IABP) device at the time of myocardial revascularization in patients presenting with an acute anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) without cardiogenic shock has any impact on the in-hospital rate of cardiac mortality. BACKGROUND: The role of IABP in patients presenting with an acute MI without cardiogenic shock remains ill defined. METHODS: The present study comprised 605 consecutive patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention for an anterior STEMI without cardiogenic shock. Patients who received IABP at the time of their coronary revascularization (n=105) were compared to those who had not (n=500). Patients with stable angina, unstable angina, non-STEMI, non-anterior STEMI, and cardiogenic shock were excluded. RESULTS: The two cohorts were well matched for the conventional risk factors for coronary artery disease. Although the left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly lower in the patients who received IABP (0.32±0.11 vs. 0.39±0.12; P<0.001), the two cohorts were well matched for history of MI, coronary revascularization, and chronic renal impairment. Following propensity scoring, the in-hospital rate of cardiac death was similar between the two cohorts (5.6% vs. 0%; P=.12) as was the rate of vascular complications. Major bleeding was significantly greater in the IABP cohort (10.0% vs. 0%; P=.01) leading to a greater transfusion requirement (14.9% vs. 2.9%; P=.01). CONCLUSION: The adjunctive use of an IABP in patients presenting with an acute anterior STEMI without cardiogenic shock may not be associated with an in-hospital mortality benefit.
Authors: Xiao-Yun Zheng; Yi Wang; Yi Chen; Xi Wang; Lei Chen; Jun Li; Zhi-Gang Zheng Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Pey-Jen Yu; Hugh A Cassiere; Sophia L Dellis; Nina Kohn; Frank Manetta; Alan R Hartman Journal: Crit Care Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 9.097