心源性休克患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗前与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后使用 IABP 的生存获益。

Ahmed Azazy, Walaa Abdaziz Farid, Walid Abdu Ibrahim, Wassam ELDin Hadad El Shafey
{"title":"心源性休克患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗前与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后使用 IABP 的生存获益。","authors":"Ahmed Azazy, Walaa Abdaziz Farid, Walid Abdu Ibrahim, Wassam ELDin Hadad El Shafey","doi":"10.1186/s43044-024-00527-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a major cause of in-hospital mortality in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, little evidence is available regarding the optimal order of intra-aortic balloon counter-pulsation (IABP) insertion and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). The aim of this study was to assess the hospital and short-term survival benefits of two different IABP insertion approaches, before versus after PPCI in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Total mortality was 80 patients representing 48.4% of the total 165 studied patients; 60 patients died during the hospital admission period, while the remaining 20 patients died post-discharge. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in Post-PPCI-IABP group 40 (49.4%) versus Pre-PPCI-IABP group 20 (23.8%) (P = 0.001). Moreover, the mortality difference between the two groups was sustained over six-month follow-up period, where 15 patients (18.5%) died in the Post-PPCI-IABP group, while only 5 patients 6.0% died in the Pre-PPCI-IABP (P = 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Early IABP insertion before PPCI is associated with improved in-hospital and long-term survival when used for patients presenting with AMI complicated by hemodynamic instability.</p>","PeriodicalId":74993,"journal":{"name":"The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology","volume":"76 1","pages":"99"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11303647/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Survival benefit of IABP in pre- versus post-primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with cardiogenic shock.\",\"authors\":\"Ahmed Azazy, Walaa Abdaziz Farid, Walid Abdu Ibrahim, Wassam ELDin Hadad El Shafey\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s43044-024-00527-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a major cause of in-hospital mortality in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, little evidence is available regarding the optimal order of intra-aortic balloon counter-pulsation (IABP) insertion and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). The aim of this study was to assess the hospital and short-term survival benefits of two different IABP insertion approaches, before versus after PPCI in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Total mortality was 80 patients representing 48.4% of the total 165 studied patients; 60 patients died during the hospital admission period, while the remaining 20 patients died post-discharge. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in Post-PPCI-IABP group 40 (49.4%) versus Pre-PPCI-IABP group 20 (23.8%) (P = 0.001). Moreover, the mortality difference between the two groups was sustained over six-month follow-up period, where 15 patients (18.5%) died in the Post-PPCI-IABP group, while only 5 patients 6.0% died in the Pre-PPCI-IABP (P = 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Early IABP insertion before PPCI is associated with improved in-hospital and long-term survival when used for patients presenting with AMI complicated by hemodynamic instability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74993,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology\",\"volume\":\"76 1\",\"pages\":\"99\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11303647/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43044-024-00527-w\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43044-024-00527-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:心源性休克(CS)仍是急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者院内死亡的主要原因。然而,关于插入主动脉内球囊反搏器(IABP)和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PPCI)的最佳顺序,目前几乎没有证据。本研究旨在评估急性心肌梗死和心源性休克患者在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗之前和之后两种不同的 IABP 插入方法对住院和短期生存的益处:总死亡率为 80 例,占研究的 165 例患者的 48.4%;其中 60 例患者在入院期间死亡,其余 20 例患者在出院后死亡。PPCI-IABP 术后组 40 人(49.4%)的院内死亡率明显高于 PPCI-IABP 术前组 20 人(23.8%)(P = 0.001)。此外,两组之间的死亡率差异在六个月的随访期间持续存在,PPCI-IABP术后组有15名患者(18.5%)死亡,而PPCI-IABP术前组仅有5名患者(6.0%)死亡(P = 0.001):结论:对于因血流动力学不稳定而并发急性心肌梗死的患者,在进行全血流灌注术(PPCI)前尽早植入 IABP 与改善院内和长期生存率相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Survival benefit of IABP in pre- versus post-primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with cardiogenic shock.

Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a major cause of in-hospital mortality in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, little evidence is available regarding the optimal order of intra-aortic balloon counter-pulsation (IABP) insertion and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). The aim of this study was to assess the hospital and short-term survival benefits of two different IABP insertion approaches, before versus after PPCI in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock.

Results: Total mortality was 80 patients representing 48.4% of the total 165 studied patients; 60 patients died during the hospital admission period, while the remaining 20 patients died post-discharge. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in Post-PPCI-IABP group 40 (49.4%) versus Pre-PPCI-IABP group 20 (23.8%) (P = 0.001). Moreover, the mortality difference between the two groups was sustained over six-month follow-up period, where 15 patients (18.5%) died in the Post-PPCI-IABP group, while only 5 patients 6.0% died in the Pre-PPCI-IABP (P = 0.001).

Conclusions: Early IABP insertion before PPCI is associated with improved in-hospital and long-term survival when used for patients presenting with AMI complicated by hemodynamic instability.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Unusual presentation of anomalous origin of the right pulmonary artery from the ascending aorta: case report. Effect of atrial high-rate episodes (AHREs) on functional status and quality of life (QoL) in heart failure-cardiac resynchronization therapy population. Clinical and angiographic profile of left main coronary artery disease in patients with chronic coronary syndrome: a retrospective study. Comparative safety and effectiveness of cryoballoon versus radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brief comment on "Mitral valve repair and replacement in infectious endocarditis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcome".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1