Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2022
Intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock: A propensity score matching analysis.
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.
Yuan Sheng, He Jining, Cai Zhongxing, Zhang Rui, Song Chenxi, Qiao Zheng, Song Weihua, Feng Lei, Dou Kefei
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) on patients with cardiogenic shock in an intensive care unit setting.
BACKGROUND: IABP counterpulsation is a widely used mechanical circulatory support device, but its performance has been questioned. However, current evidence of IABP use in cardiogenic shock is very limited (mainly from the IABP-SHOCK II trial), which was restricted to cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.
METHODS: This was a retrospective, real-world, cohort study based on the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III database. Adult patients with a diagnosis of cardiogenic shock were eligible.
RESULTS: A total of 1028 patients with cardiogenic shock were assessed, including 384 patients who received IABP and 644 patients who did not. The in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in patients who received IABP (adjusted odds ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.91, p = 0.009). Analysis of secondary endpoints found that the use of IABP was associated with a significantly lower risk of 1-year mortality. After propensity score matching, the in-hospital mortality remained significantly lower in the IABP group (28.10% vs. 37.59%, p = 0.018).
CONCLUSIONS: In the current cohort, IABP treatment was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock. Due to the complexity of pathophysiology in cardiogenic shock and the discrepancies in current evidence, our results should be validated through further studies in the future.
BACKGROUND: IABP counterpulsation is a widely used mechanical circulatory support device, but its performance has been questioned. However, current evidence of IABP use in cardiogenic shock is very limited (mainly from the IABP-SHOCK II trial), which was restricted to cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.
METHODS: This was a retrospective, real-world, cohort study based on the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III database. Adult patients with a diagnosis of cardiogenic shock were eligible.
RESULTS: A total of 1028 patients with cardiogenic shock were assessed, including 384 patients who received IABP and 644 patients who did not. The in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in patients who received IABP (adjusted odds ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.91, p = 0.009). Analysis of secondary endpoints found that the use of IABP was associated with a significantly lower risk of 1-year mortality. After propensity score matching, the in-hospital mortality remained significantly lower in the IABP group (28.10% vs. 37.59%, p = 0.018).
CONCLUSIONS: In the current cohort, IABP treatment was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock. Due to the complexity of pathophysiology in cardiogenic shock and the discrepancies in current evidence, our results should be validated through further studies in the future.