American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2022
Clinical profile and in-hospital outcome of patients supported by intra-aortic balloon pump in the clinical setting of cardiogenic shock.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
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.
Corsini Anna, Potena Luciano, Barberini Francesco, Foà Alberto, Gargiulo Caterina, Malaguti Mattia, Schinzari Matteo, Garofalo Mattia, Nardi Elena, Sabatino Mario, Semprini Franco, Galiè Nazzareno, Nanni Samuele
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite controversial evidences, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is still the most widely used temporary mechanical support device in cardiogenic shock (CS), as a bridge to recovery or to more invasive mechanical supports/heart transplantation.
METHODS: We analyzed retrospectively data of all patients receiving IABP for CS from 2009 to 2018 in a referral centre for advanced heart failure and heart transplantation; we included CS following acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and other CS etiologies different from ACS. We excluded patients in which IABP was implanted as a support following cardiac surgery, non-cardiac surgery in patients with severe chronic heart failure, or in elective high risk or complicated Cath Lab procedures.We focused on in-hospital outcomes (including death, recovery, heart transplantation, LVAD) and IABP complications.
RESULTS: 403 patients received IABP, 303 (75.2%) following ACS and 100 (24.8%) in non-ACS CS. Non-ACS patients were younger (59 ± 18.3 vs 73.1 ± 12.6 years, p < 0.001), had lower median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (25% [18-35] vs 38% [25-45], p < 0.001). In patients with non-ACS etiologies IABP was more frequently a bridge to heart transplantation [20% (n = 20) vs 0.3% (n = 1), P < 0.001] or LVAD [4% (n = 4) vs 0.6% (n = 2), P = 0.055], while ACS patients were more frequently discharged without transplantation/LVAD [65.7% (n = 199) vs 33% (n = 33), P < 0.001]. Non-ACS patients showed higher in-hospital mortality [46% (n = 46) vs 33.9% (n = 103), P = 0.042]. Post-transplant/LVAD outcome in non-ACS subgroup was favorable (21 out of 24 patients were discharged). Serious IABP-related adverse events occurred in 21 patients (5.2%). Ischemic/hemorrhagic complications, infections and thrombocytopenia were more frequent with longer IABP stay.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite therapy including percutaneous circulatory support, mortality in CS is still high. In our experience, in the clinical setting of refractory CS an IABP support represents a relatively safe circulatory support, associated with a low rate of serious complications in complex clinical scenarios.
METHODS: We analyzed retrospectively data of all patients receiving IABP for CS from 2009 to 2018 in a referral centre for advanced heart failure and heart transplantation; we included CS following acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and other CS etiologies different from ACS. We excluded patients in which IABP was implanted as a support following cardiac surgery, non-cardiac surgery in patients with severe chronic heart failure, or in elective high risk or complicated Cath Lab procedures.We focused on in-hospital outcomes (including death, recovery, heart transplantation, LVAD) and IABP complications.
RESULTS: 403 patients received IABP, 303 (75.2%) following ACS and 100 (24.8%) in non-ACS CS. Non-ACS patients were younger (59 ± 18.3 vs 73.1 ± 12.6 years, p < 0.001), had lower median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (25% [18-35] vs 38% [25-45], p < 0.001). In patients with non-ACS etiologies IABP was more frequently a bridge to heart transplantation [20% (n = 20) vs 0.3% (n = 1), P < 0.001] or LVAD [4% (n = 4) vs 0.6% (n = 2), P = 0.055], while ACS patients were more frequently discharged without transplantation/LVAD [65.7% (n = 199) vs 33% (n = 33), P < 0.001]. Non-ACS patients showed higher in-hospital mortality [46% (n = 46) vs 33.9% (n = 103), P = 0.042]. Post-transplant/LVAD outcome in non-ACS subgroup was favorable (21 out of 24 patients were discharged). Serious IABP-related adverse events occurred in 21 patients (5.2%). Ischemic/hemorrhagic complications, infections and thrombocytopenia were more frequent with longer IABP stay.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite therapy including percutaneous circulatory support, mortality in CS is still high. In our experience, in the clinical setting of refractory CS an IABP support represents a relatively safe circulatory support, associated with a low rate of serious complications in complex clinical scenarios.