The use of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: Data from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2

Citation
Hv. Barron et al., The use of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: Data from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2, AM HEART J, 141(6), 2001, pp. 933-939
Citations number
21
Categorie Soggetti
Cardiovascular & Respiratory Systems","Cardiovascular & Hematology Research
Journal title
AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
ISSN journal
00028703 → ACNP
Volume
141
Issue
6
Year of publication
2001
Pages
933 - 939
Database
ISI
SICI code
0002-8703(200106)141:6<933:TUOIBC>2.0.ZU;2-P
Abstract
Background Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains the leading cause of death in patients hospitalized with AMI. Alth ough several studies have demonstrated the importance of establishing and m aintaining a potent infarct-related artery, it remains unclear as to whethe r intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) provides incremental benefit to reperfusion therapy. The purpose of this study was to determine whether IABP use is associated with lower in-hospital mortality rates in patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock in a large AMI registry. Methods We evaluated patients participating in the National Registry of Myo cardial Infarction 2 who had cardiogenic shock at initial examination or in whom cardiogenic shock developed during hospitalization (n = 23,180). Results The mean age of patients in the study was 72 years, 54% were men, a nd the majority were white. The overall morality rate in all patients who h ad cardiogenic shock or in whom cardiogenic shock developed was 70%. IABP w as used in 7268 (31%) patients. IABP use was associated with a significant reduction in mortality rates in patients who received thrombolytic therapy (67% vs 49%) but was not associated with any benefit in patients treated wi th primary angioplasty (45% vs 47%). In a multivariate model, the use of IA BP in conjunction with thrombolytic therapy decreased the odds of death by 18% (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 0.93). Conclusions Patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock may have sub stantial benefit from IABP when used in combination with thrombolytic thera py.