首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Clinical Cardiology >Have We Given Up on Intra‐aortic Balloon Counterpulsation in Post–Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock?
【2h】

Have We Given Up on Intra‐aortic Balloon Counterpulsation in Post–Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock?

机译:我们是否放弃了心肌梗死后心源性休克的主动脉内球囊反搏?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

The recently published Intra‐aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II (IABP‐SHOCK II) trial concluded that intra‐aortic counterpulsation (IACP) does not reduce 30‐day mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) for whom early revascularization strategy was planned. The study resulted in downgrading IACP in post‐AMI CS patients by certain professional organizations like the European Society of Cardiology. Although this is the largest and most important CS study of this decade, it suffers from considerable shortcomings: (1) time intervals from chest‐pain onset or AMI recognition to revascularization, enrollment, and IACP initiation are not disclosed; (2) 86.6% of the treatment arm initiated IACP only post–percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and 4.3 % did not receive IACP at all; (3) 17.4% of the control arm crossed over to IACP or other mechanical support, mostly due to protocol violations; (4) there is no adjudication of the mortality events; (5) follow‐up is limited to 30 days; and (5) both methodology (especially IACP device size) and quality of IACP are not evaluated and documented. Because the study assessed mostly the efficacy and safety of style="fixed-case">IACP initiated post‐ style="fixed-case">PCI, the study conclusions should not be extrapolated to style="fixed-case">IACP pre‐ style="fixed-case">PCI or during style="fixed-case">PCI in style="fixed-case">CS. Moreover, style="fixed-case">IACP had a favorable effect on the mortality of younger patients. Intra‐aortic counterpulsation should remain the first line of mechanical circulatory support for the hemodynamically compromised style="fixed-case">AMI patients with or without style="fixed-case">CS who are undergoing primary style="fixed-case">PCI. Early upgrade to more advanced mechanical circulatory support should be considered for selective suitable candidates who remain in refractory style="fixed-case">CS despite revascularization and style="fixed-case">IACP.
机译:最近发表的《心源性休克II(IABP-SHOCK II)》中的主动脉内球囊泵研究得出结论,主动脉内反搏(IACP)不会降低患有急性心肌梗死(AMI)的心源性休克(CS)患者的30天死亡率为他们计划了早期的血运重建策略。该研究导致某些专业组织(例如欧洲心脏病学会)将AMICS后患者的IACP降级。尽管这是近十年来最大,最重要的CS研究,但它有很多缺点:(1)从胸痛发作或AMI识别到血运重建,入组和IACP起始的时间间隔尚未披露; (2)86.6%的治疗组仅在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)后才开始IACP,而4.3%的人根本没有接受IACP; (3)17.4%的控制臂越过了IACP或其他机械支持,主要是因为违反了协议; (4)没有判定死亡事件; (5)随访限制为30天; (5)IACP的方法论(尤其是IACP设备的尺寸)和质量均未得到评估和记录。因为该研究主要评估了 style =“ fixed-case”> IACP 启动后的 style =“ fixed-case”> PCI 的有效性和安全性,所以研究结论不应该是推断为 style =“ fixed-case”> IACP pre- style =“ fixed-case”> PCI 或在 style =“ fixed-case”> PCI >在 style =“ fixed-case”> CS 中。此外, style =“ fixed-case”> IACP 对年轻患者的死亡率具有有利影响。对于有或没有 style =“ fixed-case”> CS AMI 患者,主动脉内反搏仍应是机械循环支持的第一线>正在接受主要的 style =“ fixed-case”> PCI 的人。对于选择的合适候选者,应考虑尽早升级至更先进的机械循环支持,这些候选者尽管有血运重建和 span style =“ fixed-case”> IACP 仍保留在难治性 style =“ fixed-case”> CS 跨度>。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号