CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Comparison of Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Native Coronary Arteries Versus on Saphenous Venous Aorta Coronary Conduits in Patients With Low Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Impella Device Implantation Achieved or Attempted (from the PROTECT II Randomized Trial and the cVAD Registry) Effect of the PCSK9 Inhibitor Evolocumab on Total Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Cardiovascular DiseaseA Prespecified Analysis From the FOURIER Trial Revascularization in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease and Left Ventricular Dysfunction Long-Term Outcomes After PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease According to Lesion Location Comparison of Early Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Conservative Management in Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis Using Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting: Results From the TOPAS Prospective Observational Cohort Study Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Symptomatic Severe Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis 5-Year Outcomes After TAVR With Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expanding Valves: Results From the CHOICE Randomized Clinical Trial Right ventricular function and outcome in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement Stroke Rates Following Surgical Versus Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization

Clinical Trial2013 Nov 16;382(9905):1638-45.

JOURNAL:Lancet. Article Link

Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial

Thiele H, Zeymer U, Intraaortic Balloon Pump in cardiogenic shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) trial investigators. Keywords: intraaortic balloon pump; cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction

FULL TEXT PDF


BACKGROUND - In current international guidelines the recommendation for intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use has been downgraded in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction on the basis of registry data. In the largest randomised trial (IABP-SHOCK II), IABP support did not reduce 30 day mortality compared with control. However, previous trials in cardiogenic shock showed a mortality benefit only at extended follow-up. The present analysis therefore reports 6 and 12 month results.


METHODS - The IABP-SHOCK II trial was a randomised, open-label, multicentre trial. Patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction who were undergoing early revascularisation and optimum medical therapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to IABP versus control via a central web-based system. The primary efficacy endpoint was 30 day all-cause mortality, but 6 and 12 month follow-up was done in addition to quality-of-life assessment for all survivors with the Euroqol-5D questionnaire. A masked central committee adjudicated clinical outcomes. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00491036.


FINDINGS - Between June 16, 2009, and March 3, 2012, 600 patients were assigned to IABP (n=301) or control (n=299). Of 595 patients completing 12 month follow-up, 155 (52%) of 299 patients in the IABP group and 152 (51%) of 296 patients in the control group had died (relative risk [RR] 1·01, 95% CI 0·86-1·18, p=0·91). There were no significant differences in reinfarction (RR 2·60, 95% CI 0·95-7·10, p=0·05), recurrent revascularisation (0·91, 0·58-1·41, p=0·77), or stroke (1·50, 0·25-8·84, p=1·00). For survivors, quality-of-life measures including mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression did not differ significantly between study groups.


INTERPRETATION - In patients undergoing early revascularisation for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, IABP did not reduce 12 month all-cause mortality.


FUNDING - German Research Foundation; German Heart Research Foundation; German Cardiac Society; Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausärzte; University of Leipzig--Heart Centre; Maquet Cardiopulmonary; Teleflex Medical.

 

Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.