PofoliaPofolia ile paylaşıldı

New England Journal of Medicine· 2012Q1· Klinik çalışma

Miyokardiyal Enfarktüslü Kardiyojenik Şok İçin İntraaortik Balon Desteği

Intraaortic Balloon Support for Myocardial Infarction with Cardiogenic Shock

Hölger Thiele, Uwe Zeymer, Franz–Josef Neumann, Mirosław Ferenc ve diğerleri

Kısa özet

Akut miyokardiyal enfarktüsü komplike eden kardiyojenik şok hastalarında, erken revaskülarizasyon stratejisi planlandığında, intraaortik balon kontrpulsasyonu (IABP) 30 günlük mortaliteyi standart bakıma kıyasla anlamlı ölçüde azaltmadı.

Yapay zekâ ile başlık ve abstract'tan üretildi; tam metin okunmaz.

Ana noktalar

  • IABP, akut miyokardiyal enfarktüsü komplike eden kardiyojenik şok hastalarında 30 günlük mortaliteyi anlamlı ölçüde azaltmadı (%39,7'ye karşı %41,3).
  • Çalışmaya erken revaskülarizasyon uygulanan IABP veya IABP'siz gruplara atanan 600 hasta dahil edildi.
  • Sekonder uç noktalarda veya majör kanama, iskemik komplikasyonlar, sepsis veya felç oranlarında anlamlı bir fark gözlenmedi.
  • Bu bulgu, IABP'yi bu durum için sınıf I tedavi olarak sınıflandıran mevcut kılavuzlarla çelişmektedir.

Yapay zekâ ile başlık ve abstract'tan üretildi; tam metin okunmaz.

Özet (abstract)

BACKGROUND: In current international guidelines, intraaortic balloon counterpulsation is considered to be a class I treatment for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. However, evidence is based mainly on registry data, and there is a paucity of randomized clinical trials. METHODS: In this randomized, prospective, open-label, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 600 patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction to intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP group, 301 patients) or no intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (control group, 299 patients). All patients were expected to undergo early revascularization (by means of percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery) and to receive the best available medical therapy. The primary efficacy end point was 30-day all-cause mortality. Safety assessments included major bleeding, peripheral ischemic complications, sepsis, and stroke. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients in the IABP group and 298 in the control group were included in the analysis of the primary end point. At 30 days, 119 patients in the IABP group (39.7%) and 123 patients in the control group (41.3%) had died (relative risk with IABP, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.17; P=0.69). There were no significant differences in secondary end points or in process-of-care measures, including the time to hemodynamic stabilization, the length of stay in the intensive care unit, serum lactate levels, the dose and duration of catecholamine therapy, and renal function. The IABP group and the control group did not differ significantly with respect to the rates of major bleeding (3.3% and 4.4%, respectively; P=0.51), peripheral ischemic complications (4.3% and 3.4%, P=0.53), sepsis (15.7% and 20.5%, P=0.15), and stroke (0.7% and 1.7%, P=0.28). CONCLUSIONS: The use of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation did not significantly reduce 30-day mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction for whom an early revascularization strategy was planned. (Funded by the German Research Foundation and others; IABP-SHOCK II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00491036.).

Yazarların özeti; kaynağından alınmıştır. New England Journal of Medicine, 2012 · DOI ↗

ÇıkarımlarPremium
Makaleye SorÜcretsiz hesapla

Ücretsiz hesapla devam et

Makaleye Sor ile bu makaleye günde 3 soru ücretsiz; makaleyi kaydet, kaynakçasını al, ilgi alanına göre her gün yeni özetler. Çıkarımlar Premium.

Web'de ücretsiz devam et

Google ya da Apple hesabınla giriş; kart istemez. Bu makaleye geri dönersin.

Telefonda:

Alan: Biyomedikal Mühendislik

Biomedical EngineeringEngineering