IABP治疗心梗伴心源性休克患者的护理

急性心肌梗死 (AMI)患者并发心源性休克 ,靠药物治疗死亡率高达 80 %以上[1 ] 。主动脉内球囊反搏术 (IABP)自 1967年Kantrowitz等首先在临床上应用后 ,这种机械性的循环辅助装置广泛应用于治疗心源性休克 ,使病死率有所下降[2 ] 。我院自 1998年 5月至 2 0 0 3年 2月应用I ABP治疗 15例急性心肌梗死合并心力衰竭患者 ,取得良好成效。现就护理体会报告如下。1　临床资料1.1　一般资料 :本组患者 15例 ,男 13例 ,女 2例 ,年龄 45～ 77岁 ,平均 60 .5岁 ,均为AMI合并心源性休克 ,其中 6例为广泛前壁AMI;1例前间壁AMI并发室间隔穿孔 ;…     

主动脉球囊反搏治疗心源性休克23例护理体会

目的回顾性分析（探讨）主动脉球囊反搏在心源性休克患者治疗过程中常见的护理问题,并提出相应的护理对策,为预防和处理并发症提供依据。方法对我院23例行主动脉球囊反搏治疗的心源性休克患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析,总结分析主动脉球囊反搏置管期的主要监测项目和护理措施。结果除1例放弃治疗外,其余22例顺利出院。结论在心源性休克患者应用主动脉球囊反搏治疗的置管期,应做好各项指标的监测和置管处的护理,可减少并发症的发生,提高治疗成功率。     

床边IABP在抢救老年心源性休克患者中的应用

目的观察床边行主动脉球囊反搏在抢救老年心源性休克患者治疗过程中的效果。方法 15例老年心源性休克患者在床边行主动脉球囊反搏,收集IABP治疗前后平均动脉压、尿量、心率、多巴胺的剂量结果进行比较。结果 15例患者IABP治疗前后平均动脉压、尿量、心率、多巴胺的剂量进行配对t检验,差异有统计学意义。结论床边IABP对于老年心源性休克的患者具有确实、有效的治疗作用。能在应用后很快增加冠脉循环的灌注压、提高平均动脉压,改善心肌供血及血流动力学状态。     

VA-ECMO联合IABP在急性心肌梗死PCI术后并发难治性心源性休克中的应用

目的:观察动-静脉体外膜肺氧合(VA-ECMO)联合主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)对急性心肌梗死PCI术后合并难治性心源性休克患者的临床疗效及转归.方法:回顾性分析2019年12月-2021年4月我院心内科收治的急性心肌梗死PCI术后合并难治性心源性休克同时接受VA-ECMO及IABP治疗的11例患者,收集并观察临床基线...     

急性心肌梗塞伴心源性休克患者应用IABP泵的围手术期护理

目的探讨主动脉内球囊反搏(intra aortic balloon pump,IABP)在治疗急性心肌梗塞(Acute myocardial infarction,AMI)伴心源性休克患者应用中的护理体会。方法回顾性分析2008-2012年42例AMI伴心源性休克的患者的临床资料,总结IABP在上述人群应用的护理经验和体会。结果 42例患者应用IABP治疗过程中出现并发症7例(16.7%),其中局部出血4例,下肢缺血1例,血栓栓塞1例,穿刺部位感染1例。经积极治疗和护理,上述患者全部病愈出院。结论积极的预防、观察及护理能有效减少IABP治疗AMI伴心源性休克患者并发症。     

急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克患者应用主动脉球囊反搏的临床特征分析

目的:分析影响主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)辅助的急性心肌梗死(AMI)合并心源性休克(CS)患者院内死亡的危险因素。方法:连续收录2005年1月至2016年12月,在北京安贞医院因AMI合并CS临床应用IABP的住院患者,共231例,比较死亡与存活患者入院一般情况、治疗及IABP应用情况等临床特点,以二分类Logistic回归分析导致院内死亡的危险因素。结果:院内死亡组较存活组年龄偏高,女性患者偏多,发生CS时血射血分数较低,CKMB及血乳酸肌酐较高。死亡组发生机械并发症及室性心动过速及心室颤动较多,且多支冠状动脉血管病变,未进行任何血运重建者较多。存活组急诊PCI者较多。二分类Logistic回归示,高龄(年龄60岁)、中度及以上肾功能不全、高乳酸值(2μmol/L)、低射血分数(50%)及病变血管≥2支为导致CS患者院内死亡的危险因素。结论:AMI合并CS患者,尤其是基础状态差、冠状动脉病变重的患者,院内死亡风险极高。IABP作为桥梁,为患者维持血流动力学稳定及尽快血运重建等方面有着积极地意义。在IABP支持下进行及时血运重建,是挽救高危患者生命的关键。     

主动脉内球囊反搏治疗急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克21例

目的评价主动脉内球囊反搏（intra—aortic balloon counter pulsation,IABP）在急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克患者治疗作用。方法回顾性分析心肌梗死伴有心源性休克21例,比较IABP治疗前后舒张压、平均动脉压和心脏指数,分析IABP的疗效。结果应用IABP 30min后,舒张期反搏压达到60～130mmHg（1mmHg=0．133kPa）,心脏指数从（1．61±0．23）L／（min·m^2）上升至（2．31±0．21）L／（min·m^2）（P〈0．001）,平均动脉压从（48±16）mmHg升至（85±25）mmHg（P〈0．01）,临床症状明显好转．血流动力学显著改善。死于心源性休克或多器官衰竭各2例。结论 IABP显著地增加急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克患者的冠状动脉血流,减轻心脏后负荷,改善心肌氧供需平衡,增加心输出量。     

主动脉球囊反搏术治疗急性心肌梗死伴发心源性休克的护理体会

目的探索应用主动脉球囊反搏术治疗急性心肌梗死伴发心源性休克的治疗效果及护理方法。方法对我院9例急性心肌梗死伴发心源性休克患者应用主动脉球囊反搏术治疗并精心护理。结果本组患者再治疗后收缩压、舒张压、血氧饱和度明显提高、心功能明显改善,心率下降、尿量增加。结论对急性心肌梗死伴发心源性休克患者应用主动脉球囊反搏治疗,具有良好的近期疗效,并发症少,积极的预防治疗护理措施则能减少并发症,降低死亡率,促进患者康复。     

主动脉内球囊反搏在急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克中的应用

目的:探讨主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)在急性心肌梗死(AMI)合并心源性休克中的应用价值。方法:收集88例AMI合并心源性休克患者的临床资料,其中50例行IABP,38例药物治疗,回顾性分析88例患者的治疗效果及安全性。结果:对于AMI并心源性休克患者,应用IABP后可改善血流动力学,使患者的收缩压、心率趋于稳定,左心室射血分数(LVEF)有明显改善,与非IABP组比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);IABP组住院生存时间优于非IABP组(RR=0.402,95%CI:0.175~0.921,P=0.031)。肢体缺血与出血的发生率2组无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论:对于AMI合并心源性休克的患者,行IABP辅助循环,可改善血流动力学,改善住院生存时间,且相对安全。     

主动脉球囊反搏术治疗急性心肌梗死并发心源性休克临床疗效观察

目的探讨主动脉球囊反搏术(IABP)治疗急性心肌梗死并发心源性休克的临床疗效和安全性。方法采用回顾性分析的方法分析2009年12月—2011年12月在我院心内科住院治疗的108例急性心肌梗死并发心源性休克患者,其中58例行IABP循环支持治疗的患者为观察组和50例未经急诊IABP循环支持治疗的患者为对照组。观察两组治疗后的血浆B型尿钠肽前体(PRO-BNP)、平均动脉压、血氧饱和度等指标。结果两组治疗前血浆PRO-BNP水平、平均动脉压及血氧饱和度比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组治疗后血浆PRO-BNP水平、、平均动脉压及血氧饱和度比较,差异均有统计学意(P<0.05)。结论 IABP治疗可以显著改善急性心肌梗死并发心源性休克患者的临床症状,明显降低住院期间患者病死率,改善患者的预后,值得推广应用。     

急性心肌梗死伴心源性休克的治疗

目的：本文观察早期冠状动脉再通及其他辅助治疗对急性心肌梗死（ＡＭＩ）合并心源性休克患者转归的影响。方法：对ＡＭＩ伴心源性休克的１７例患者进行回顾性研究，除外１例合并心室间隔穿孔。其余１６例患者分为药物组５例，仅应用药物治疗；介入组１１例接受溶栓，行经皮冠状动脉腔内成形术、行支架术、主动脉内球囊反搏、呼吸机辅助呼吸等治疗。介入组患者经冠状动脉造影后根据心肌梗死溶栓试验（ＴＩＭＩ）分级进一步分为再通组与未再通组。对药物组和介入组，再通组和未再通组住院期间病死率进行了比较。结果：药物组患者住院期间全部死亡，病死率１００％。介入组患者４例死亡，病死率３６％，较药物组明显降低（Ｐ＜０．０１）。介入组患者经冠状动脉造影未再通组（ＴＩＭＩ０～Ⅰ级）４例，３例死亡，病死率７５％，再通组（ＴＩＭＩⅡ～Ⅲ级）７例，死亡１例，病死率１４％，与未再通组比较病死率显著降低（Ｐ＜０．０１）。结论：早期冠状动脉再通，同时应用主动脉内球囊反搏，辅助呼吸等治疗将有效地降低ＡＭＩ伴心源性休克患者的病死率     

急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克的研究进展

心源性休克是急性心肌梗死的严重并发症 ,是引起急性心肌梗死患者死亡的主要原因。本文综述了急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克在定义、发生机制和治疗等方面的研究进展。     

Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background

Diabetes mellitus (diabetes) increases the risk of acute myocardial infarction, which can result in cardiogenic shock. Data on the relation of diabetes and the occurrence and prognosis of cardiogenic shock postacute myocardial infarction are scant.

急性心肌梗塞并发心源性休克相关因素的探讨

回顾性分析５１例急性心肌梗塞患者并发心源性休克的相关因素，发现有８项因素与之密切相关，且相关因素越多，并发心源性休克的发生率越高，此８项相关因素可作为急性心梗并发心源性休克的预报指标，Ａ组１６例并发心源性休克，３周内死亡５例，Ｂ组３５例未并发心源性休克，３周内无１例死亡，Ｂ组溶栓再通率（６０％）显著高于Ａ组（２５％）Ｐ＜０．０１，认为冠脉早期再通可以降低急性心梗并发心源性休克的发生率，亦能提高急性心梗患者的生存率．     

Cardiogenic Shock Among Patients with and without Acute Myocardial Infarction in a Latin American Country: A Single-Institution Study

Background:Latin America has limited information about the full spectrum cardiogenic shock (CS) and its hospital outcome. This study sought to examine the temporal trends, clinical features and outcomes of patients with CS in a coronary care unit of single Mexican institution.Methods:This was a retrospective study of consecutive patients hospitalized with CS in a Mexican teaching hospital between 2006–2019. Patients were classified according to the presence or absence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI).Results:Of 22,747 admissions, 833 (3.7%) exhibited CS. Among patients with AMI (n = 12,438), 5% had AMI–CS, and in patients without AMI (n = 10,309), 2.3% developed CS (non-AMI–CS). Their median age was 63 years and 70.5% were men. Cardiovascular risk factors were more frequent among the AMI–CS group, whereas a history of heart failure was greater in non-AMI–CS patients (70.1%). In AMI-CS patients, the median delay time was 17.2 hours from the onset of AMI symptoms to hospital admission. Overall, the median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 30%. Patients with CS at admission showed end-organ dysfunction, evidenced by lactic acidosis, renal impairment, and elevated liver transaminases. Of the 620 AMI–CS patients, the main cause was left ventricular dysfunction in 71.3%, mechanical complications in 15.2% and right ventricular infarction in 13.5%. Among the 213 non-AMI–CS patients, valvular heart disease (49.3%) and cardiomyopathies (42.3%) were the most frequent etiologies. In-hospital all-cause mortality rates were 69.7% and 72.3% in the AMI–CS and non-AMI–CS groups, respectively. Among AMI–CS patients, renal dysfunction, diabetes, older age, depressed LVEF, absence of revascularization and the use of mechanical ventilation were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. However, in the non-AMI–CS group, only low LVEF and high lactate levels proved significant.Conclusions:This study demonstrates differences in the epidemiology of CS compared to high-income countries; the high mortality reflects critically ill patients and the lack of contemporary effective therapies in the population studied.     

Cardiogenic Shock Among Patients with Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in a Middle Eastern Country: A Single-Center Experience

BackgroundCardiogenic Shock (CS) remains the most common cause of death in hospitalized acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. Predictors of outcomes in those patients include clinical, laboratory, radiologic variables, and management strategies. The present study aimed to evaluate the incidence, characteristics, predictors of cardiogenic shock and mortality among acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients in our center.MethodsThis was a retrospective, single-center study conducted at KAMC, Makkah during 2015–2020. All acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients during this era were divided into two groups CS group and non-CS group.ResultsIn this study total 3074 acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients of which 132(4.3%) patients had CS. CS group tended to have higher ages than non-CS group. Pilgrims were more complicated by CS than nonpilgrims. Subsequently, CS patients had a highly significant (p < 0.001 for all) increase in the incidence of in-hospital complications including pulmonary oedema, cardiac arrest and ventilation. There was a significant increase in hospital stay length and in-hospital mortality among CS patients. Renal impairment, peak troponin level, haemoglobin drop≥3 gm/dl, and Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) were significant independent predictors of cardiogenic shock among our patients. However, STEMI type, left main disease, and EF was the independent predictors of CS among our patients with diabetes with EF cut-off value of 35% with a sensitivity of 74.6% and a specificity of 65.3%. Age was the only independent predictor of mortality among CS patients. Though age, female gender, and diabetes were found to be the independent predictors for in-hospital mortality among our patients.ConclusionHigh-income middle eastern countries have comparable outcomes to Europe and USA among patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with higher improvement of medical care in the last 2 to 3 decades. Renal impairment, peak troponin, severe bleeding and ejection fraction were significant independent predictors of CS in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients. However, STEMI type, left main disease, and ejection fraction were the independent predictors of CS in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with diabetes. Age was the only independent predictor of mortality among CS patients.     

不同种类溶栓药物对急性心肌梗死后心源性休克发生风险的影响研究

目的在接受静脉溶栓治疗的急性心肌梗死病人中研究不同种类溶栓药物对心源性休克的发生风险有无影响。方法研究对象为中山大学附属第一医院和昆明医学院第一附属医院1994—2006年收治的急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死,并接受溶栓治疗的病人。收集病人在入院后72h之内的临床资料,以胸痛发作至心源性休克发生的时间作为因变量,各种潜在的危险因素作为自变量建立Cox生存分析模型,计算各因素在相同时点发生心源性休克的风险函数。结果高龄、男性、有外周动脉疾病史能增加发生心源性休克的风险,溶栓成功、较高的体质指数和平均动脉压能降低心源性休克的风险。广泛前壁心肌梗死病人发生休克的风险高于他部位心肌梗死的患者。溶栓药物种类没有进入Cox回归方程,而溶栓效果与症状发作至溶栓时间的相互作用对心源性休克的发生有影响。结论成功的溶栓治疗能极大降低急性心肌梗死后心源性休克的风险,而该治疗成功的关键在于尽早接受溶栓治疗,不在于溶栓药物种类的选择。     

Impact of Active and Historical Cancers on the Management and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicating Cardiogenic Shock

BackgroundThere are limited data on the outcomes of acute myocardial infarction–cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) in patients with concomitant cancer.MethodsA retrospective cohort of adult AMI-CS admissions was identified from the National Inpatient Sample (2000–2017) and stratified by active cancer, historical cancer, and no cancer. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, use of coronary angiography, use of percutaneous coronary intervention, do-not-resuscitate status, palliative care use, hospitalization costs, and hospital length of stay.ResultsOf the 557,974 AMI-CS admissions during this 18-year period, active and historical cancers were noted in 14,826 (2.6%) and 27,073 (4.8%), respectively. From 2000 to 2017, there was a decline in active cancers (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.63–0.79]; P < .001) and an increase in historical cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.89–2.25]; P < .001). Compared with patients with no cancer, patients with active and historical cancer received less-frequent coronary angiography (57%, 67%, and 70%, respectively) and percutaneous coronary intervention (40%, 47%, and 49%%, respectively) and had higher do-not-resuscitate status (13%, 15%, 7%%, respectively) and palliative care use (12%, 10%, 6%%, respectively) (P < .001). Compared with those without cancer, higher in-hospital mortality was found in admissions with active cancer (45.9% vs 37.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.24–1.34]; P < .001) but not historical cancer (40.1% vs 37.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.98–1.04]; P = .39). AMI-CS admissions with cancer had a shorter hospitalization duration and lower costs (all P < .001).ConclusionConcomitant cancer was associated with less use of guideline-directed procedures. Active, but not historical, cancer was associated with higher mortality in patients with AMI-CS.