CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Older Adults in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit: Factoring Geriatric Syndromes in the Management, Prognosis, and Process of Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of DAPT disruption due to non-compliance vs. bleeding after PCI: insights from the PARIS Registry Effect of Empagliflozin on Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure by Baseline Diabetes Status - Results from the EMPEROR-Reduced Trial Randomized Comparison of Ridaforolimus-Eluting and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents 2-Year Clinical Outcomes: From the BIONICS and NIREUS Trials Shock Team Approach in Refractory Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Short-Term Mechanical Circulatory Support: A Proof of Concept Drug-eluting balloons in coronary interventions: the quiet revolution? Vericiguat in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: This document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in April 2019 ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients in the Coronary Care Unit Is it Time to Break Old Habits? Major infections after bypass surgery and stenting for multivessel coronary disease in the randomised SYNTAX trial

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.