PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation provides mechanical support for patients with cardiogenic shock. The aim of the study is to evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock receiving IABP before and after the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) downgraded the use of IABP from a class I to a class IIb in 2012.
Data was obtained from the Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Survey (ACSIS) registry, a prospective observational national survey conducted once every two years. From a total of 15,200 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), 524 patients were identified with acute myocardial infarction (AMI)-complicated with cardiogenic shock. The groups were further subdivided based on whether the IABP was implanted before or after the change in guideline recommendation.
The study indicates a 24% reduction in IABP use since 2002. Until 2012, a reduction in clinical outcomes including 7-days, 30-days and in-hospital mortality, was observed in patients with IABP compared to the patients with conventional therapy. Conversely, after the ESC changed the guidelines, the clinical outcomes were not improved by IABP treatment. Additionally, the conventional therapy group presented with higher baseline ejection fraction, received less effective treatment, reperfusion and/or pharmacological therapy than patients with IABP.
The use of IABP as management for cardiogenic shock has diminished over time since the guidelines were modified. After the change in guidelines, the use of IABP is restricted to high-risk, severely compromised and hemodynamically deteriorated patients hence limiting beneficial outcomes.
Data was obtained from the Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Survey (ACSIS) registry, a prospective observational national survey conducted once every two years. From a total of 15,200 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), 524 patients were identified with acute myocardial infarction (AMI)-complicated with cardiogenic shock. The groups were further subdivided based on whether the IABP was implanted before or after the change in guideline recommendation.
The study indicates a 24% reduction in IABP use since 2002. Until 2012, a reduction in clinical outcomes including 7-days, 30-days and in-hospital mortality, was observed in patients with IABP compared to the patients with conventional therapy. Conversely, after the ESC changed the guidelines, the clinical outcomes were not improved by IABP treatment. Additionally, the conventional therapy group presented with higher baseline ejection fraction, received less effective treatment, reperfusion and/or pharmacological therapy than patients with IABP.
The use of IABP as management for cardiogenic shock has diminished over time since the guidelines were modified. After the change in guidelines, the use of IABP is restricted to high-risk, severely compromised and hemodynamically deteriorated patients hence limiting beneficial outcomes.
摘要：
暂无翻译
