Comparison of Heart Failure Cardiogenic Shock Patients with Axillary and Femoral Intra-aortic Balloon Pump: Cardiogenic Shock Working Group report.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bhimaraj Arvind, Garan Arthur R, Kong Qiuyue, Kim J U, Pahuja Mohit, Kochar Ajar, Narayangowda Smitha, Li Borui, Li Song, Sinha Shashank S, Hickey Gavin W, Kataria Rachna, Ton VAN-Khue, Lundgren Scott, Nathan Sandeep, Vorovich Esther, Hall Shelley, Khalife Wissam, Schwartzman Andrew, Vishnevsky Oleg Alec, Zweck Elric, Fried Justin, Farr Mary Jane, Mahr Claudius, Mishkin Joseph, Chiang I-Hui, Ilonze Onyedika, Arias Alexandra, Marbach Jeffrey, Bezerra Hiram, Sangal Paavni, Walec Karol D, Zazzali Peter, Harwani Neil M, Blumer Vanessa, John Kevin, Hernandez-Montfort Jaime, Abraham Jacob, Burkhoff Daniel, Kanwar Manreet K, Kapur Navin K
Аннотация
METHODS: Data from 2020 to 2023 from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group, a multicenter academic consortium, were analyzed. We examined the demographic, metabolic, hemodynamic characteristics, and outcomes of patients with HF-CS treated with Ax-IABP and compared them with those who primarily received a Fem-IABP.
RESULTS: Of 6201 CS patients in the registry, 557 (8.9%) patients received an IABP for HF-CS, of whom 244 (43.8%) and 313 (56.2%) received Ax-IABP and Fem-IABP, respectively. Compared with Fem-IABP, patients who received Ax-IABP were more likely to have previous intracardiac defibrillators (42.5% vs 68.9%, P < .001). Time to IABP implant from admission (7.9 ± 10.6 vs 1.8 ± 6.1, P < .01) and duration of support (9.6 ± 14.6 vs 4.0 ± 4.5, P < .01) were longer among Ax-IABP, relative to Fem-IABP. Patients who received Ax-IABP were more likely to undergo heart-replacement therapy (65% vs 21%, P < .001) compared with the Fem-IABP cohort. The rate of reported complications was similar between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION: Axillary IABP is being used beyond single-center reports to support HF-CS mostly as a bridge to heart-replacement therapies. Its use might provide advantages over fem-IABP.