Reversible severe ischemic mitral regurgitation and cardiogenic shock as a complication of percutaneous coronary intervention

We describe a case of severe ischemic mitral regurgitation (MR) causing reversible cardiogenic shock as a complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the circumflex due to no-reflow. Baseline echocardiography before PCI showed only mild MR. After the occurrence of no-reflow post stenting, patient developed acute hypotension, hypoxia, pulmonary edema, increase in pulmonary mean wedge pressure to 42 mmHg with very high V-wave during pulmonary wedge tracing and cardiogenic shock requiring intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) insertion. Urgent echocardiography revealed severe MR. With the establishment of normal flow in the circumflex artery after IABP insertion and intracoronary adenosine injections, severe MR, hypoxia and all hemodynamic instability resolved. We present this case as a first documented complication of PCI causing severe reversible ischemic MR leading to cardiogenic shock and a review of the literature. We conclude that in all patients with sudden unexplained hemodynamic deterioration during PCI, an urgent echocardiogram is indicated to recognize possible acute ischemic MR.     

Appropriate indications for the use of a percutaneous cardiopulmonary support system in cases with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction

Percutaneous cardiopulmonary support (PCPS) is now available for hemodynamic support in patients with cardiogenic shock, but there are no guidelines for its use. The present study determined the appropriate indications for the use of the PCPS in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Sixty-four consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock complicating AMI had hemodynamic support with an intraaortic balloon pump (IABP; n=38) and/or PCPS (n=26). The shock score (0-15) was calculated immediately before starting these support systems to quantify the severity of shock. Multivariate logistic regression analysis determined the clinical factors affecting in-hospital mortality. The relationship between in-hospital prognosis and the shock score was also examined in the 2 groups. The most significant factor related to the in-hospital prognosis was the shock score (p=0.0007; OR 2.16, 95% CI: 1.37-3.39). Another related factor was revascularization; however, this relationship did not reach statistical significance (p=0.069; OR 0.06). Among the 13 cases whose shock score was 4-8 (moderate shock), 5 survived in the PCPS group, but only 1 of 19 patients survived in the IABP group (p<0.05). None of the patients in either group whose shock score was more than 9 survived. The severity of shock is the most reliable independent predictor of in-hospital mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating AMI. Using PCPS in patients with moderate cardiogenic shock may improve their in-hospital survival, but it must be used before the shock becomes severe.     

Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation: an eleven-year review and analysis of determinants of survival

During an 11-year period ending January 1, 1985, 352 patients had insertions of an intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) as an adjunct to medical or surgical therapy. Group I, 175 patients, could not be weaned from cardiopulmonary bypass and required intraaortic balloon pump (IABP). Thirty-nine patients (22%) died in the operating room. Twenty-five patients (14%) died in the acute care unit. The remaining 111 patients (63.4%) survived and were discharged from the hospital. Group II, 104 patients, had the IABP inserted preoperatively. Indications were: postinfarction cardiogenic shock (34 patients), unstable angina (35), postinfarction angina (27), poor ventricular function (six), and prophylaxis (two). Of the 62 patients with unstable angina and postinfarction angina, 57 (92%) were successfully weaned. Of the 34 patients with postinfarction cardiogenic shock, 26 were weaned, but only 16 (47%) survived to leave the hospital. Group III, 34 patients, had the IABP inserted for postoperative hemodynamic deterioration in the acute care unit at variable times: 14 (41%) patients survived. Group IV, 39 patients, had IABP support for medical therapy. Of 24 patients with postinfarction cardiogenic shock, 12 survived. Twelve of 13 patients with unstable angina lived. Of the 352 patients, 228 (65%) were discharged from the hospital. The overall incidence of complications was 12.5%. Complications related to IABP were higher with percutaneous insertion than by femoral arteriotomy (15% vs 12%). Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation effectively unloads the failing left ventricle in weaning patients from cardiopulmonary bypass (Group I). Preoperative insertion (Group II) resulted in 92% survival in patients with both pre- and postinfarction angina. Delayed insertion (Group III) in postoperative patients gave the poorest survival (41%). In patients with postinfarction cardiogenic shock, IABP without corrective cardiac surgery was associated with a 50% survival: with corrective cardiac surgery, 16 patients (47%) survived. Left ventricular dysfunction, myocardial infarction, and timely insertion of IABP are the primary determinants of survival. Approximately one-third of patients who required IABP will die. More involved techniques for mechanical support of the failing circulation, such as ventricular assist device or total artificial heart, may increase survival.     

主动脉内球囊反搏联合体外膜肺氧合的临床应用

目的:总结主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)联合体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)在左心功能严重受损患者中的治疗经验。方法:回顾性分析我院12例心脏术后严重心源性休克需同期采用IABP和ECMO辅助患者的临床资料,调查患者术前基本情况、临床诊断、辅助原因、机械辅助时间、并发症及预后。以患者院内死亡或生存结果,将患者分为2组。选取6个时间点,分别是机械循环辅助前、使用一种机械辅助后、使用第2种机械辅助前、IABP联合ECMO使用后、撤除ECMO后及撤除IABP后;整理分析患者血流动力学参数、血气指标、血管活性药物使用剂量及肝肾功能指标等情况。结果:6例存活出院,其中1例肾衰竭行血滤4d后恢复,后因插管侧动脉栓塞截肢。6例死亡患者全部发生肾衰竭,其中3例行血滤;3例发生下肢缺血坏死。患者的血流动力学指标、血管活性药物剂量、血气血乳酸值在联合使用IABP和ECMO后显著改善(P0.05)。结论:IABP与ECMO联合应用为严重左心功能不全患者的救治提供了新的机遇。     

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。     

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.     

微创血流动力学监测在心源性休克患者复苏治疗中的作用

目的:探讨FloTrac/Vigileo微创血流动力学监测技术在心源性休克患者复苏治疗中的应用。方法:选择19例入住ICU的心源性休克患者,采用FloTrac/Violeo微创血流动力学监测技术对患者进行床旁血流动力学监测,并指导液体复苏。观察液体容量复苏期间血流动力学指标的动态变化及疾病的转归。结果:19例患者,复苏72 h后中心静脉压(CVP)均较前明显下降,CI、ScvO2明显升高(均P0.05)。其余指标无显著性差异。入院第28 d,13例患者复苏成功后转入普通病房,无严重并发症。6例患者因严重心力衰竭死亡。复苏后72 h存活组与死亡组比较,HR、MAP、CVP、CI、SVRI、ScvO2指标差异均有统计学意义。其中存活组复苏前后比较,CVP较前明显下降,CI、ScvO2明显升高(均P0.05)。死亡组MAP、CVP较前明显下降,CI、ScvO2明显升高(均P0.05)。结论:FloTrac/Vigileo微创血流动力学监测技术能有效地通过监测心源性休克患者的容量负荷及全身血流灌注情况,以指导临床进行液体复苏,预防并发症的发生。     

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。     

Intraaortic balloon assistance in intractable cardiogenic shock

The efficacy of intraaortic counter pulsation (IABP) in severecardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction is questionedbecause of the lack of a large controlled series. Out of 52 patients treated for severe, prolonged cardiogenicshock 3 improved with ‘conventional’ treatment.Forty-nine patients did not improve and were in ‘intractable’shock for an average of 10.74 ± 7.14 h x $ SD). Of these, 34 were treated with IABP. Ten survived longer thana month. Of the remaining 15 patients of similar age, severityand duration of shock, in whom the balloon could not be madeto operate, none survived. It is suggested that intraaortic counterpulsation can save anumber of patients with severe protracted cardiogenic shockafter all other available treatment modalities have failed.     

Use of Intraaortic Balloon Counterpulsation in Patients Presenting With Cardiogenic Shock: Observations From the GUSTO-I Study

Objectives. We sought to examine the use, complications and outcomes with early intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) in patients presenting with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction and treated with thrombolytic therapy.Background. The use of IABP in patients with cardiogenic shock is widely accepted; however, there is a paucity of information on the use of this technique in patients with cardiogenic shock who are treated with thrombolytic therapy.Methods. Patients who presented within 6 h of chest pain onset were randomized to one of four thrombolytic regimens. Cardiogenic shock was not an exclusion criterion, and data for these patients were prospectively collected. Patients presenting with shock were classified into early IABP (insertion within one calendar day of enrollment) or no IABP (insertion on or after day 2 or never).Results. There were 68 (22%) IABP placements in 310 patients presenting with shock. Early IABP use occurred in 62 patients (20%) and none in 248 (80%). Most IABP use occurred in the United States (59 of 68 IABP placements) involving 32% of U.S. patients presenting with shock. Despite more adverse events in the early IABP group and more episodes of moderate bleeding, this cohort showed a trend toward lower 30-day and 1-year mortality rates.Conclusions. IABP appears to be underutilized in patients presenting with cardiogenic shock, both within and outside the United States. Early IABP institution is associated with an increased risk of bleeding and adverse events but a trend toward lower 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality.     

Hemodynamic parameters are prognostically important in cardiogenic shock but similar following early revascularization or initial medical stabilization: a report from the SHOCK Trial

BACKGROUND: In cardiogenic shock (CS), conclusive data on serial hemodynamic measurements for treatment guidance and prognosis are lacking. METHODS: The SHOCK (Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock?) Trial tested early revascularization (ERV) vs initial medical stabilization (IMS) in CS complicating acute myocardial infarction and serially assessed hemodynamics by pulmonary artery catheter. RESULTS: Data were available in 278 patients (95%) surviving to the first measurement with predominant left ventricular failure at baseline and in 174 patients (70%) at follow-up. Baseline and follow-up hemodynamic data were similar in the treatment groups. The median time from CS to baseline measurements was 3.3 h in both treatment groups, whereas follow-up measurements were obtained earlier in the IMS group (median time, 10.6 h) than in the ERV group (median time, 12.5 h; p = 0.043). At baseline, stroke volume index (SVI) was an independent predictor of 30-day mortality after adjustment for age (odds ratio, 0.69 per 5 mL/m2 increase; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.87; p = 0.002). At follow-up, both stroke work index (SWI) [odds ratio, 0.54 per 5 g/m/m2 increase; 95% confidence interval, 0.39 to 0.76; p < 0.001] and SVI (odds ratio, 0.59 per 5 mL/m2 increase; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 0.77; p < 0.001) were similarly powerful predictors of 30-day mortality after adjustment for age. CONCLUSIONS: SVI and SWI are the most powerful hemodynamic predictors of 30-day mortality in CS patients. Hemodynamic parameters are similar for surviving patients following ERV and IMS. Thus, early hemodynamic stability after IMS should not delay revascularization since long-term outcomes are superior with ERV.     

Levosimendan as rescue therapy in severe cardiogenic shock after ST-elevation myocardial infarction

Data on the use of levosimendan in patients with myocardial infarction related cardiogenic shock already under combined catecholamine treatment and intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) are scarce. Seven consecutive patients with refractory cardiogenic shock after ST-elevation myocardial infarction, multi-organ dysfunction syndrome and under maximal intensive care (combined catecholamine treatment, IABP) were treated with levosimendan (bolus 12 microg/kg i.v., thereafter 0.1 microg/kg over 24 h). Hemodynamic effects were registered invasively and monitored over 72h post infusion. Therapy with levosimendan significantly reduced required epinephrine dose after 48h (P=0.02 versus baseline). Norepinephrine dose had to be increased during the first 12 h of levosimendan (+25%; P=ns), but was significantly reduced at 72 h compared to baseline (median 0.14 versus 0.06 microg/kg/min after 72 h; P<0.05). Cardiac power output increased (baseline 0.6 versus 1.1 > or = 48 h after infusion; P<0.01) and systemic vascular resistance decreased (median 1294 dyn*s*cm-5 at baseline versus 858 dyn*s*cm-5 at 24 h; P<0.05) after levosimendan infusion. IABP therapy could be weaned in all patients during 5 days after infusion and all patients survived the cardiogenic shock (ICU mortality 29%). Levosimendan as an adjunctive, rescue therapy in patients with severe cardiogenic shock may be safe with beneficial effects on hemodynamics over 72 h.     

“Assessing the hemodynamic impact of various inotropes combination in patients with cardiogenic shock with Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction –the ANAPHOR study”

BackgroundVarious inotropic agents/vasopressors combinations are used in patients of cardiogenic shock. We performed this study to observe hemodynamic effects of various inotrope/vasopressor combinations in patients with NSTEMI cardiogenic shock (CS) at tertiary cardiac centreMethods and materialsOf 3832 NSTEMI, we studied 59 consecutive such patients with CS who hadn't undergone revascularization in the first 24 h in a prospective, open label, observational study. Group 1 comprised of background Dopamine with Noradrenaline titration(N = 38), Group 2 had background Dobutamine and Noradrenaline titration(N = 15) and Group 3 comprised of triple combination of Dopamine, Noradrenaline & Adrenaline(N = 6).ResultsThe mean change in hemodynamic parameters between these groups from baseline to 24 h showed no statistical difference. Cardiac output(CO), mean arterial pressure(MAP), central venous pressure(CVP) and cardiac power output(CPO) in group 2 were favorable at 6 and 24 h compared to baseline but mean change was insignificant as compared to others. In group 3, the increase in MAP was significant. IABP use did not change CO, CPO or SVR in any group except lower dosages of Dobutamine (49%) in IABP group. Lower in-hospital mortality in group 2 compared to others (P = 0.004) may be reflective of sicker patients in group 1 and 3.ConclusionThe mean changes in hemodynamic parameters were not significant between all groups. All regimes of inotropes when selected as per clinical indication in CS with ACS resulted in similar hemodynamic effects. The mortality difference may not truly be reflective of regimes rather reflect sicker patients in the higher mortality group.     

Reperfusionstherapie und mechanische Kreislauf-unterstützung bei Patienten mit kardiogenem Schock

Cardiogenic shock is a state of inadequate tissue perfusion due to cardiac dysfunction, which is most commonly caused by acute myocardial infarction. The pathophysiology of cardiogenic shock is characterized by a downward spiral: ischemia causes myocardial dysfunction, which, in turn, augments the ischemic damage and the energetical imbalance. With conservative therapy, mortality rates for patients with cardiogenic shock are frustratingly high reaching more than 80%. Additional thrombolytic therapy has not been shown to significantly improve survival in such patients. Emergency cardiac catheterization and coronary angioplasty, however, seem to improve the outcome in shock-patients, which most probably is due to rapid and complete revascularization generally reached by angioplasty. In addition to interventional therapy with rapid coronary revascularization, the use of mechanical circulatory support may interrupt the vicious cycle in cardiogenic shock by stabilizing hemodynamics and the metabolic situation. Different cardiac assist devices are available for cardiologists and cardiac surgeons: 1. intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP), 2. implantable turbine-pump (Hemopump), 3. percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass support (CPS), 4. right heart, left heart, or biventricular assist devices placed by thoracotomy, and 5. intra- and extrathoracic total artificial hearts. Since percutaneous application is possible with IABP, Hemopump and CPS, these devices are currently used in interventional cardiology. The basic goals of the less invasive intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP; Figure 1) are to stabilize circulatory collapse, to increase coronary perfusion and myocardial oxygen supply, and to decrease left ventricular workload and myocardial oxygen demand (Figure 2). Since the advent of percutaneous placement, IABP has been used by an increasing number of institutions (Figure 3). In addition to cardiogenic shock, the system may be of use in a variety of other indications in the catheterization laboratory and intensive care unit, including weaning from percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass, in ischaemic left ventricular failure, in unstable angina, in high risk PTCA, and in prophylactic support in patients with myocardial infarction and successful revascularization. Animal experimental data showed that IABP may improve success of thrombolysis and recent clinical data suggest that survival is enhanced and transfer for revascularization is facilitated when patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock undergo thrombolysis and IABP rather than thrombolysis alone. A lot of studies had demonstrated before, that combined use of counterpulsation and revascularization therapy (i.e. coronary bypass surgery or angioplasty) may improve prognosis in patients with myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (Table 1). In such patients, early treatment with IABP is most important: Multivariate analysis identified early IABP-support with a duration of shock to IABP-treatment of > or = 4 hours as an independent predictor of a positive short-term outcome. In shock-patients with postinfarction ventricular septal defect, IABP provides a marked hemodynamic improvement, and a significant decrease in shunt-flow (Figure 5). However, despite initial stabilization with IABP, such patients need immediate surgical repair of the septal defect to avoid hemodynamic deterioration. The rate of complications related to percutaneous IABP was significantly attenuated by employing catheters of reduced size. Using 9.5-F catheters, a long duration of counterpulsation emerged as the most significant factor associated with complications. In our hospital, those patients with 9.5-F catheters in whom counterpulsation did not exceed 48 hours had a low complication rate of 3.9%. The Hemopump is a catheter-mounted transvalvular left ventricular assist device intended for surgical placement via the femoral artery (Figures 6 and 7). (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)     

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.     

Prolonged Veno-Arterial Bypass with membrane oxygenator for profound cardiogenic shock following cardiac surgery experience in 13 cases

As a mechanical cardiac support, prolonged (over 5 hrs) Veno Arterial Bypass (VAB) with membrane oxygenator was indicated to 13 patients who was profound cardiogenic shock following open heart surgery, among 1700 cases of cardiac surgery (0.8%). In 12 of 13 cases, cardiopulmonary bypass could not be weaned after intracardiac repair, despite maximal pharmacological management with or without IABP support. Another one case was intractable ventricular fibrillation in ICU, two days after operation. Six of 13 patients who were supported by prolonged VAB, survived and discharged from the hospital. In survivors, mean of VAB flow was 900 +/- 265 ml/min/m2, in died 7 cases, mean of VAB flow was 1450 +/- 550 ml/min/m2 (p less than 0.05). The longest duration of VAB in survivors was less than 28 hrs. Improvements of anticoagulation and VAB circuits make it safer to manage prolonged VAB. For profound cardiogenic shock, prolonged VAB is an easy and safe mechanical cardiac support not only in surgical cases but in internal medical cases.     

Impact of intra-aortic balloon pump support initiated before versus after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction

Background

Little evidence is available on the optimal sequence of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support initiation and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients who present with cardiogenic shock from ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study was to evaluate the order of IABP insertion and primary PCI and its association with infarct size and mortality.

Methods

A series of 173 consecutive patients admitted with cardiogenic shock from STEMI and treated with primary PCI and IABP between 2000 and 2009 were included. The order of IABP insertion and primary PCI was left at the discretion of the interventional cardiologist.

Results

All baseline characteristics were similar in patients who first received IABP (n = 87) and patients who received IABP directly after PCI (n = 86). In these two groups, cumulative 30-day mortality was 44% and 37% respectively (p = 0.39). Median peak serum creatine kinase (CK) concentrations were 5692 U/l and 4034 U/l respectively (p = 0.048). In multivariable analysis, IABP insertion before PCI was independently associated with higher CK levels (p = 0.046). In patients who survived 30 days, IABP insertion before PCI was not associated with late mortality evaluated at five years of follow-up (HR1.5, 95% CI 0.7–3.3; p = 0.34).

Conclusions

Early IABP insertion before primary PCI might be associated with higher peak CK levels, indicating a larger infarct size. A possible explanation may be the increased reperfusion delay. Our study suggests that early reperfusion could have priority over routine early IABP insertion in STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock. Randomized studies are needed to determine the optimal timing of IABP insertion relative to primary PCI.     

The role of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients undergoing percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty

Between June, 1979, and July, 1982, 14 patients required an IABP in conjunction with PTCA. The clinical indications for balloon counterpulsation, in the performance of PTCA were (1) clinically unstable situations where PTCA might otherwise be contraindicated, e.g., left main stem disease, multivessel coronary artery disease, unstable anginal syndromes, and cardiogenic shock; (2) preoperative insertion of an IABP for added safety following unsuccessful angioplasty; (3) abrupt vessel closure during a PTCA procedure in which the patient becomes hemodynamically unstable; and (4) late vessel closure following an initially successful angioplasty resulting in hemodynamic compromise. Of the 14 cases requiring balloon counterpulsation, 13 survived hospitalization and were alive at the time this report was submitted. We conclude that IABP is a useful adjunct to PTCA in a variety of clinical circumstances.     

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。     

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)