Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions · 2012
The impact of intra-aortic balloon counter-pulsation on in-hospital mortality in patients presenting with anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction without cardiogenic shock.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Mahmoudi Michael, Hauville Camille, Gaglia Michael A, Sardi Gabriel, Torguson Rebecca, Xue Zhenyi, Satler Lowell F, Suddath William O, Pichard Augusto D, Waksman Ron
Аннотация
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.
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.