New England Journal of Medicine· 2012Q1· Clinical trial
Intraaortic Balloon Support for Myocardial Infarction with Cardiogenic Shock
- 2,805citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2012year
Short summary
In patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction, intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) did not significantly reduce 30-day mortality compared to standard care when an early revascularization strategy was planned.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- IABP did not significantly reduce 30-day mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (39.7% vs 41.3%).
- The trial included 600 patients assigned to either IABP or no IABP, all undergoing early revascularization.
- No significant differences were observed in secondary endpoints or rates of major bleeding, ischemic complications, sepsis, or stroke.
- This finding contrasts with current guidelines that classify IABP as a class I treatment for this condition.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
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.).
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. New England Journal of Medicine, 2012 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Biomedical Engineering
Biomedical EngineeringEngineering