期刊
SHOCK
卷 37, 期 4, 页码 378-384出版社
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SHK.0b013e31824a67af
关键词
Hemodynamic effects; intra-aortic balloon pump; counterpulsation; acute myocardial infarction; cardiogenic shock
资金
- Datascope
- intensive care unit of the Department of Internal Medicine III of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg
We conducted the IABP Cardiogenic Shock Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT00469248) as a prospective, randomized, monocentric clinical trial to determine the hemodynamic effects of additional intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) treatment and its effects on severity of disease in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation is recommended in patients with CS complicating myocardial infarction. However, there are only limited randomized controlled trial data available supporting the efficacy of IABP following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and its impact on hemodynamic parameters in patients with CS. Percutaneous coronary intervention of infarct-related artery was performed in 40 patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by CS, within 12 h of onset of hemodynamic instability. Serial hemodynamic parameters were determined over the next 4 days and compared in patients receiving medical treatment alone with those treated with additional intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. There were no significant differences among severity of disease (i.e., Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score) initially and no differences among both groups for disease improvement. We observed significant temporal improvements of cardiac output (4.8 +/- 0.5 to 6.0 +/- 0.5 L/min), systemic vascular resistance (926 +/- 73 to 769 +/- 101 dyn . s(-1) . cm(-5)), and the prognosis-validated cardiac power output (0.78 +/- 0.06 to 1.01 +/- 0.2 W) within the IABP group. However, there were no significant differences between the IABP group and the medical-alone group. Additional IABP treatment did not result in a significant hemodynamic improvement compared with medical therapy alone in a randomized prospective trial in patients with CS following PCI. Therefore, the use and recommendation for IABP treatment in CS remain unclear.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据