主动脉内球囊反搏在急性心肌梗死合并泵衰竭急诊介入中的辅助治疗

目的　评价在急性心肌梗死 (AMI)合并泵衰竭急诊介入中辅以主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)治疗的安全性及有效性。方法　对 87例合并严重泵衰竭甚或心源性休克的AMI患者行急诊介入治疗。将 2 1例 (2 4% )同时接受IABP辅助治疗的患者设为IABP组 (A组 ) ,另 6 6例 (76 % )设为对照组 (B组 )。比较两组临床特征、冠状动脉造影情况及住院期的临床疗效。结果　年龄、性别、发病初始至导管室时间、心肌梗死部位、冠状动脉病变支数、具体梗死相关动脉 (IRA)及血管重建术前梗死相关动脉血流TIMI分级等指标 ,A、B两组之间无统计学差异。心功能分级 (Killip分级 ) ,A组较B组严重 ;而住院期间 ,A组死亡率及血管再闭塞事件较B组明显降低。结论　对于高危AMI合并泵衰竭 ,尤其心源性休克的患者 ,在行急诊介入时 ,IABP的辅助使用明显降低住院期死亡率 ,减少血管再闭塞率 ,提高手术成功率 ,其远期预后有待进一步随访。     

主动脉内球囊反搏在急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克治疗中的应用

目的评价主动脉球囊反搏术(IABP)在急性心肌梗死(AMI)合并心源性休克治疗中的应用价值。方法选取AMI合并心源性休克患者65例,其中IABP组30例,在IABP支持下行急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI),对照组35例,单纯行急诊PCI治疗。结果IABP组患者在IABP支持下,30 min后血流动力学指标改善,2~8 h血流动力学稳定,均完成梗死相关血管再通,没有血管再闭塞事件发生,无术中死亡,院内死亡率40%;对照组患者院内死亡率74.3%,其中6例在术中死亡。结论IABP可明显改善AMI合并心源性休克患者的血流动力学指标,增加冠状动脉的灌注;IABP可提高急诊PCI的成功率,减少术后低心排综合征及血管再闭塞事件的发生,降低院内死亡率,明显改善了AMI合并心源性休克患者的预后。     

急性心肌梗死合并心原性休克47例治疗和死亡原因分析

目的 评价急性心肌梗死合并心原性休克47例患者的临床疗效,寻求降低病死率、改善预后的措施.方法 回顾性分析2002年1月至2007年5月共47例心肌梗死合并心原性休克患者,运用心血管活性药物、主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)、介入手术或冠状动脉旁路移植术的治疗效果.结果 IABP治疗47例(100%),再血管化治疗41例(87.3%),死亡17例(36.2%).经药物和IABP治疗,在接受再血管化前死亡的患者占死亡数的35.3%(6/17),再血管化后死亡的患者占死亡数的64.7%(11/17).死于心功能衰竭者9例,死于肾功能衰竭和呼吸功能衰竭者8例.11例出现急性肾功能衰竭的患者全部死亡.急性肾功能衰竭(r=0.734,P=0.000)、急性呼吸功能衰竭(r=0.606,P=0.000)和糖尿病(r=0.372,P=0.012)与死亡有相关关系.结论 尽管急性心肌梗死合并心原性休克的治疗有了很大的发展,但病死率仍然较高,主要死因是急性心力衰竭、急性肾功能衰竭和急性呼吸功能衰竭.要进一步降低急性心肌梗死合并心原性休克患者住院病死率,可能需要更好的循环辅助装置及加强重要器官的保护.     

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

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains the leading cause of death in patients hospitalized with AMI. Although several studies have demonstrated the importance of establishing and maintaining a patent infarct-related artery, it remains unclear as to whether 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 Myocardial 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, and the majority were white. The overall mortality rate in all patients who had cardiogenic shock or in whom cardiogenic shock developed was 70%. IABP was 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 with primary angioplasty (45% vs 47%). In a multivariate model, the use of IABP 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 substantial benefit from IABP when used in combination with thrombolytic therapy.     

主动脉内球囊反搏术治疗心源性休克

目的 回顾性分析主动脉球囊反搏(intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation,IABP)治疗心源性休克的疗效.方法 IABP治疗心源性休克38例,其中急性心肌梗死34例,病毒性心肌炎4例.利用无创血流动力学监测系统(Bioz.com)连续监测患者IABP术前和术后的血流动力学改变.结果 患者心率、平均动脉压、心输出量、顺应指数、左心室做功指数、胸液量、系统血管阻力等血流动力学指标均得到明显改善(P＜0.05),在急性心肌梗死患者34例中,24例行冠状动脉造影术,15例行球囊扩张术及支架植入术,术后死亡7例.5例行冠状动脉旁路移植术,术后死亡2例;治疗组总病死率为9/20(45%).未治疗组14例,死亡12例(12/14,86%);4例病毒性心肌炎死于心源性休克患者3例.结论 IABP能明显改善心源性休克患者的血流动力学指标,对急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克疗效好.     

主动脉内球囊反搏辅助治疗急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克的临床分析

目的分析主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)辅助治疗急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克的临床疗效。方法选择急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克的老年患者50例,观察置入IABP前后患者血流动力学变化、心功能、IABP并发症及预后情况。结果与IABP置入前比较,患者置入IABP后平均动脉压、心率、LVEF及心功能指标均得到不同程度的改善,无严重并发症出现,预后良好。结论 IABP辅助治疗急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克可能有效安全。     

Clinical usefulness of intraaortic balloon pumping in acute myocardial infarction complicated with cardiogenic shock, ventricular septal perforation and mitral regurgitation

The effects of intraaortic balloon pumping (IABP) were studied in 91 patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated with cardiogenic shock (75 pts), ventricular septal perforation (VSP) (12 pts), and/or mitral regurgitation (MR) (4 pts). Out of 44 pts with cardiogenic shock in whom IABP was performed, 14 pts could not recover from cardiogenic shock, 6 pts became dependent on IABP and 13 pts survived (29.5%). In contrast, out of the remaining 31 pts with cardiogenic shock who did not undergo IABP because of inability to insert IABP catheter or other reasons and were treated medically, only 3 pts survived (9.7%, p less than 0.05). After the initiation of IABP, BPd, CI, SVI, SWI, TMG increased significantly, and HR, CVP, PCWP, TPR decreased significantly. Comparison of hemodynamic parameters after the initiation of IABP showed that SVI and SWI at 24 hours were higher and CVP lower in survivors. Out of 7 pts with VSP who underwent IABP 2 pts were operated and survived. In conclusion: short-term mortality in pts with cardiogenic shock was significantly lower in IABP-treated group, hemodynamic parameters improved after IABP, survivors from cardiogenic shock had higher SVI, SWI, BPd, and lower CVP than non-survivors, patients with VSP and MR had worse prognosis in spite of IABP.     

急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克或血流动力学紊乱患者应用主动脉内球囊反搏术后影响临床疗效的危险因素分析

目的探讨急性心肌梗死(AMI)合并心源性休克(CS)或血流动力学紊乱患者应用主动脉内球囊反搏术(IABP)辅助治疗后,影响临床疗效的危险因素。方法回顾性分析广州军区广州总医院68例因AMI合并CS或血流动力学紊乱应用IABP辅助治疗的患者,根据其临床转归分为好转、死亡两组。对两组的性别、年龄、高血压、糖尿病、吸烟、高脂血症、既往冠心病史、入院时心率、入院时收缩压、入院时舒张压、病变血管支数、发病至行IABP术时间、TIMI血流、罪犯血管14项进行Logistic回归分析。结果本研究的死亡率为47.06%,所有危险因素中,罪犯血管是影响临床疗效的独立危险因素(P=0.015),其余危险因素均未影响预后(P0.05)。罪犯血管组间比较显示,前降支与其他罪犯血管间差异有统计学意义(OR 0.047,95%CI 0.004~0.547,P=0.015)。结论罪犯血管是AMI合并CS或血流动力学紊乱应用IABP辅助治疗后影响临床疗效的危险因素。前降支病变患者应用IABP辅助治疗后可降低住院期间死亡率,左主干、右冠状动脉病变患者应用IABP辅助治疗后未能降低住院期间死亡率。     

主动脉内球囊反搏有效改善急性心肌梗死合并室间隔穿孔患者的循环

目的：探讨主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)对急性心肌梗死(AMI)并发室间隔穿孔(VSR)患者循环的影响。方法：回顾性分析59例AMI合并VSR患者的临床资料，其中42例患者植入IABP辅助循环为IABP组，17例患者予以药物保守治疗为药物治疗组。比较IABP组与药物治疗组间患者一般血流动力学（包括IABP植入前、后平均血压、心率、无创心功能指标）、血乳酸水平、心脏超声等指标。根据患者是否存在休克状态，将59例患者分为休克组(40例)与非休克组(19例)，比较休克组与非休克组间一般血流动力学（包括IABP植入前、后平均血压、心率、无创心功能）、血乳酸水平、心功能等指标，并观察30d临床预后。结果：IABP治疗组患者在植入24h后平均心率下降、平均动脉血压升高、血乳酸水平下降、心脏超声左室射血分数(LVEF)值提升、无创心功能心脏指数升高(P均＜0.05）；药物治疗组上述指标无明显改变。IABP治疗组与药物治疗组30d死亡率比较,差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论：对于AMI合并VSR患者，植入IABP可显著改善患者血流动力学、酸中毒、临床心功能及循环状态。     

Percutaneous Coronary Interventions and Hemodynamic Support in the USA: A 5 Year Experience

Objectives

To compare the utilization and outcomes in patients who had percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) performed with intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP) versus percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVADs) such as Impella and TandemHeart and identify a sub‐group of patient population who may derive the most benefit from the use of PVADs over IABP.

Background

Despite the lack of clear benefit, the use of PVADs has increased substantially in the last decade when compared to IABP.

Methods

We performed a cross sectional study including using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Procedures performed with hemodynamic support were identified through appropriate ICD‐9‐CM codes.

Results

We identified 18,094 PCIs performed with hemodynamic support. IABP was the most commonly utilized hemodynamic support device (93%, n = 16, 803) whereas 6% (n = 1069) were performed with PVADs and 1% (n = 222) utilized both IABP and PVAD. Patients in the PVAD group were older in age and had greater burden of co‐morbidities whereas IABP group had higher percentage of patients with cardiac arrest. On multivariable analysis, the use of PVAD was a significant predictor of reduced mortality (OR 0.55, 0.36–0.83, P = 0.004). This was particularly evident in sub‐group of patients without acute MI or cardiogenic shock. The propensity score matched analysis also showed a significantly lower mortality (9.9% vs 15.1%; OR 0.62, 0.55–0.71, P < 0.001) rate associated with PVADs when compared to IABP.

Conclusion

This largest and the most contemporary study on the use of hemodynamic support demonstrates significantly reduced mortality with PVADs when compared to IABP in patients undergoing PCI. The results are largely driven by the improved outcomes in non‐AMI and non‐cardiogenic shock patients. (J Interven Cardiol 2015;28:563–573)

     

应用主动脉内球囊反搏结合血管重建术治疗急性心肌梗死并发泵衰竭患者的效果

目的:观察应用主动脉内球囊反搏（IABP）结合血管重建术治疗急性心肌梗死并发泵衰竭患者的效果。方法: 2004年12月~2010年12月我院确诊急性心肌梗死并发泵衰竭并应用IABP的住院患者75（男54,女21）例。按是否做血管重建术分为两组:血管重建组和非血管重建组。所有患者均在药物治疗的基础上行IABP,所用反搏仪为AUTO CAT2或Datascope 98 system,血管重建组并行冠状动脉造影及经皮冠状动脉介入术(PCI)或冠脉旁路移植术（CABG）。结果: 全部75例患者中,IABP反搏时间2～336（90±75） h;死亡22例,病死率29%;血管重建组中63例行PCI术,1例行择期CABG,术后死亡14例,病死率22%;非血管重建组中死亡8例,病死率73%。血管重建组的病死率显著低于非血管重建组（P<0.01）,并发症共5例,发生率7%。结论: 在IABP的支持下,积极进行血管重建治疗可以降低急性心肌梗死并发泵衰竭患者的住院期间病死率。     

Contemporary utilization and outcomes of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction: the benchmark registry

OBJECTIVES: We sought to examine contemporary utilization patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) requiring intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation. BACKGROUND: Despite increasing experience with and broadened indications for intra-aortic counterpulsation, the current indications, associated complications, and clinical outcomes of IABP use in AMI are unknown. METHODS: Between June 1996 and August 2001, data were prospectively collected from 22,663 consecutive patients treated with aortic counterpulsation at 250 medical centers worldwide; 5,495 of these patients had AMI. RESULTS: Placement of an IABP in AMI patients was most frequently indicated for cardiogenic shock (27.3%), hemodynamic support during catheterization and/or angioplasty (27.2%) or prior to high-risk surgery (11.2%), mechanical complications of AMI (11.7%), and refractory post-myocardial infarction unstable angina (10.0%). Balloon insertions were successful in 97.7% of patients. Diagnostic catheterization was performed in 96% of patients, and 83% underwent coronary revascularization before hospital discharge. The in-hospital mortality rate was 20.0% (38.7% in patients with shock) and varied markedly by indication and use of revascularization procedures. Major IABP complications occurred in only 2.7% of patients, despite median use for three days, and early IABP discontinuation was required in only 2.1% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: With contemporary advances in device technology, insertion technique, and operator experience, IABP counterpulsation may be successfully employed for a wide variety of conditions in the AMI setting, providing significant hemodynamic support with rare major complications in a high-risk patient population.     

主动脉内球囊反搏在急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克治疗中的临床应用

目的评价主动脉内球囊反搏（IABP）在急性心肌梗死（AMI）合并心源性休克（CS）治疗中的有效性及安全性。方法对22例接受IABP治疗的AMI合并CS患者,观察其临床效果及安全性。结果 22例患者中,有20例患者接受急诊或择期PCI治疗,大部分患者经IABP治疗后,其血流动力学改善,平均动脉压从术前（57.97±8.36）mmHg升至术后（74.40±5.81）mmHg,临床症状好转,死亡6例,2例死于泵衰竭（均未接受PCI治疗）,2例患者死于心脏猝死,1例死于大面积脑梗死,1例死于失血性休克;1例患者在IABP辅助治疗中出现血小板严重减少。结论对AMI合并CS患者及时行IABP辅助治疗,尤其尽早联合应用PCI实现血流再灌注,可明显改善患者的血流动力学状态及临床症状,降低患者死亡率,改善患者预后,疗效安全可靠。     

Outcomes among patients requiring unplanned intra-aortic balloon pump reinsertion in cardiogenic shock

IntroductionThe intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is the most frequently utilized form of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in cardiogenic shock (CS). Withdrawal of IABP support may precipitate hemodynamic compromise such that IABP reinsertion is required. Data are scarce regarding the incidence and outcomes of patients undergoing IABP reinsertion in this setting.MethodsIn this single-center retrospective study, we identified consecutive patients with CS in whom IABP reinsertion was required for hemodynamic decompensation. These patients were compared to matched controls in whom IABP withdrawal was successful. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality, while the secondary outcome measure was a composite of in-hospital death, need for advanced MCS or heart transplantation, or discharge to hospice.ResultsAmong 222 patients requiring IABP for CS, we identified 20 case patients (incidence = 9.0%) and 38 matched controls. Baseline characteristics were similar for the two groups. In-hospital mortality was 70% in the reinsertion group and 31% in the controls (Odds ratio (OR) 5.2, 95% CI 1.4–18.9, P = 0.005). The composite secondary endpoint was also significantly more common in the reinsertion group than the controls (85% vs. 42%; OR 7.3, 95% CI 1.6–33.1, P = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, the need for IABP reinsertion was independently associated with in-hospital mortality (OR 7.7, 95% CI 1.6–36.2, P = 0.01).ConclusionAmong patients with CS undergoing IABP removal, hemodynamic deterioration requiring IABP reinsertion is associated with extremely poor outcomes and, in appropriate patients, should prompt consideration of more advanced cardiac support.     

IABP治疗急性心肌梗死并发心源性休克的临床护理

目的总结分析16例急性心肌梗死并发心源性休克患者进行主动脉球囊反搏术(intra-aorticballoonpumping,IABP)的治疗效果及其护理经验。方法选择我院16例急性心肌梗死并发心源性休克的患者,在应用主动脉球囊反搏术前、术后的观察对比。结果在IABP循环支持治疗后,患者的收缩压、舒张压血氧饱和度、心功能明显提高,心率下降,尿量增加。结论对急性心肌梗死并发心源性休克患者实施主动脉球囊反搏术治疗,具有良好的近期疗效。积极的预防治疗护理措施则能减少并发症,降低病死率。     

Effect of early revascularisation in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. A single center experience

BACKGROUND: Five to 10% of patients with acute myocardial infarction develop cardiogenic shock and the majority of these patients are expected to die within the first few weeks. In this study, we review our recent experience in the management of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating MI and examine the effect of early invasive revascularisation on mortality. METHODS: Thirty-six consecutive patients who developed cardiogenic shock less than 48 h after MI were retrospectively evaluated and divided into two treatment groups. One group received early invasive revascularisation (n=24) and the other group had no early invasive revascularisation, but received similar conventional intensive care medical treatment (n=12). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics and hemodynamic variables were similar in both groups. Apart from invasive revascularisation and the use of intra aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP), treatment strategies did not differ between the two groups. Thirty-day mortality was 21% in the revascularised group of patients and 58% in the non-revascularised group (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our data support previous observations suggesting that an aggressive treatment strategy including early invasive revascularisation and IABP is associated with improved short and long-term survival in patients with cardiogenic shock. Since early revascularisation appears safe with a considerable treatment benefit, this approach must be considered in patients with short shock duration early after MI.     

老年急性心肌梗死患者死亡及危险因素的回顾性分析

目的：探讨不同年龄段老年急性心肌梗死（AMI）患者的死亡情况及危险因素。方法回顾性地分析2006年12月至2012年1月入院的883例60～89岁的AMI患者（按年龄分为两组,60～74岁为老年组共473例,75～89岁为高龄组共410例）的一般情况、既往病史及家族史、临床检查及诊断、并发症、治疗及生存情况。结果老年组死亡率明显低于高龄组（5.9%vs 14.6%,P＝0.000）,经皮冠状动脉介入（PCI）治疗率明显高于高龄组（92.6%vs 69.8%,P＝0.000）。两组患者死亡均与尿素氮、血糖、白细胞、脑钠肽（BNP）水平高,并发窦性停搏、心室颤动、心房颤动、心源性休克、Killip 3-4级,使用主动脉内球囊反搏（IABP）,未手术呈正相关;与药物（包括血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂/血管紧张素Ⅱ受体拮抗剂、β受体阻滞剂、他汀类药物）使用率呈负相关。尿素水平高、并发窦性停搏与心源性休克、未手术为两组患者死亡的独立危险因素。结论积极PCI治疗可改善老年AMI患者预后,需重视其尿素氮水平及窦性停搏、心源性休克等并发症。     

Indications, results of therapy and factors which influence survival in patients treated with intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation

BACKGROUND AND AIM: During nearly 40 years of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) application in advanced medical therapy more and more indications for this treatment have been proposed. Despite increasing experience with IABP, the clinical effects of IABP use are still unclear. The aim of this study was to determine results of IABP use and factors which influence survival in cardiogenic shock (CS) caused by different clinical disorders when treated with IABP. METHODS: 73 patients (mean age 58.3+/-12.6 years, 54 males) undergoing IABP were included in the study. Data were collected retrospectively. After analysis of the whole population a subgroup of patients admitted due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was evaluated. The in-hospital and overall mortality rates were assessed. RESULTS: In-hospital death occurred in 31 (42.5%) patients. Over half of these patients (n=17; 54.8%) died during first 7 days from admission. The main reason for IABP introduction was CS due to acute coronary syndrome (ACS) at admission in 62 (84.9%) patients. The in-hospital mortality in patients with AMI complicated by CS was 40.7%. The features which significantly influenced survival in patients with AMI were age--patients who died were older (64+/-8.9 vs. 58.6+/-9,1; p=0.0285), and ST segment changes--there was lower mortality rate in a subgroup with ST elevation AMI (18 vs. 6 patients, p=0.003). We also observed slightly higher incidence of anterior wall AMI in survivors than in non-survivors (p=0.06). CONCLUSION: Our study presents several disorders which may be treated with IABP. Acute MI still remains the most frequent indication for IABP insertion. In the present study, AMI survivors and non-survivors, differed mainly in age, ST segment changes and infarction site. Non ST segment elevation AMI was associated with worse prognosis.     

急性心肌梗死合并心原性休克患者住院期间结果及影响因素分析

目的探讨影响急性心肌梗死(AMI)合并心原性休克(CS)患者住院期间死亡的因素。方法回顾性分析2002年4月至2019年4月于首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院心脏中心接受治疗的321例AMI合并CS患者的临床资料。将患者分为院内死亡组(230例)和院内生存组(91例)。比较两组患者的基线特征、冠状动脉造影和介入治疗特征、心功能和生化指标。结果与院内生存组相比,院内死亡组患者年龄偏大,院前时间偏长,非ST段抬高型心肌梗死比例偏高;三支冠状动脉病变发生率高,实施心肺复苏比例高,急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)率偏低;血清肌酐和B型脑钠肽显著增高。两组主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)置入率相当(82.3%比86.8%,P=0.349)。两组左心室射血分数、肌钙蛋白I峰值、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇、白细胞计数、红细胞沉降率和C反应蛋白比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。logistic多因素回归分析显示,年龄(OR 1.005,95%CI 0.992~1.212,P=0.047)、院前时间(OR 0.898,95%CI 0.991~1.006,P=0.048)、急诊PCI(OR 0.331,95%CI 0.103~3.521,P=0.039)和实施心肺复苏(OR 7.238,95%CI 1.620~32.343,P=0.010)是AMI合并CS住院期间死亡的独立预测因素。结论IABP置入不影响AMI合并CS住院期间生存率。年龄、院前时间、急诊PCI和实施心肺复苏是住院期间死亡的独立预测因素。     

主动脉内球囊反搏在高危急性心肌梗死患者辅助治疗中的作用

目的评价主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)在高危急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者辅助治疗中的作用。方法28例高危AMI患者在不同的病情及治疗状况下,给予LABP治疗。结果23例患者(82％)接受IABP治疗后,血流动力学稳定。所有接受血运重建治疗的患者辅以IABP,没有发生血管再闭塞事件。心原性休克患者经IABP辅助治疗存活率为58％。结论对于高危AMI合并血流动力学不稳定或心原性休克的患者,IABP可以完全地使用并有效地稳定血流动力学状态,为患者争取了进行经皮腔内冠状动脉成形术和冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)的时间,同时可增加冠脉内血流,减少再闭塞率。