TY - JOUR
T1 - Benefits of intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction patients in severe cardiogenic shock undergoing coronary revascularization
AU - Mao, Chun Tai
AU - Wang, Jian Liang
AU - Chen, Dong Yi
AU - Tsai, Ming Lung
AU - Lin, Yu Sheng
AU - Cherng, Wen Jin
AU - Wang, Chao Hung
AU - Wen, Ming Shien
AU - Hsieh, I. Chang
AU - Hung, Ming Jui
AU - Chen, Chun Chi
AU - Chen, Tien Hsing
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Mao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2016/8/1
Y1 - 2016/8/1
N2 - Background: Prior studies have suggested intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) have a neutral effect on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). However, the effects of IABP on patients with severe CS remain unclear. We therefore investigated the benefits of IABP in AMI patients with severe CS undergoing coronary revascularization. Methods and Results: This study identified 14,088 adult patients with AMI and severe CS undergoing coronary revascularization from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2011, dividing them into the IABP group (n = 7044) and the Nonusers group (n = 7044) after propensity score matching to equalize confounding variables. The primary outcomes included myocardial infarction(MI), cerebrovascular accidents or cardiovascular death. In-hospital events including dialysis, stroke, pneumonia and sepsis were secondary outcomes. Primary outcomes were worse in the IABP group than in the Nonusers group in 1 month (Hazard ratio (HR) = 1.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.84-2.12). The MI rate was higher in the IABP group (HR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.16-1.79), and the cardiovascular death was much higher in the IABP group (HR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.92-2.23). The IABP users had lower incidence of dialysis (8.5% and 9.5%, P = 0.04), stroke (2.6% and 3.8%, P<0.001), pneumonia (13.9% and 16.5%, P<0.001) and sepsis (13.2% and 16%, P<0.001) during hospitalization than Nonusers. Conclusion: The use of IABP in patients with myocardial infarction and severe cardiogenic shock undergoing coronary revascularization did not improve the outcomes of recurrent myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death. However, it did reduce the incidence of dialysis, stroke, pneumonia and sepsis during hospitalization.
AB - Background: Prior studies have suggested intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) have a neutral effect on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). However, the effects of IABP on patients with severe CS remain unclear. We therefore investigated the benefits of IABP in AMI patients with severe CS undergoing coronary revascularization. Methods and Results: This study identified 14,088 adult patients with AMI and severe CS undergoing coronary revascularization from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2011, dividing them into the IABP group (n = 7044) and the Nonusers group (n = 7044) after propensity score matching to equalize confounding variables. The primary outcomes included myocardial infarction(MI), cerebrovascular accidents or cardiovascular death. In-hospital events including dialysis, stroke, pneumonia and sepsis were secondary outcomes. Primary outcomes were worse in the IABP group than in the Nonusers group in 1 month (Hazard ratio (HR) = 1.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.84-2.12). The MI rate was higher in the IABP group (HR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.16-1.79), and the cardiovascular death was much higher in the IABP group (HR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.92-2.23). The IABP users had lower incidence of dialysis (8.5% and 9.5%, P = 0.04), stroke (2.6% and 3.8%, P<0.001), pneumonia (13.9% and 16.5%, P<0.001) and sepsis (13.2% and 16%, P<0.001) during hospitalization than Nonusers. Conclusion: The use of IABP in patients with myocardial infarction and severe cardiogenic shock undergoing coronary revascularization did not improve the outcomes of recurrent myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death. However, it did reduce the incidence of dialysis, stroke, pneumonia and sepsis during hospitalization.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84983044960
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0160070
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0160070
M3 - 文章
C2 - 27483439
AN - SCOPUS:84983044960
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 11
JO - PLoS ONE
JF - PLoS ONE
IS - 8
M1 - e0160070
ER -
