These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of the Hemodynamic Response to Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Resulting from Acute Myocardial Infarction Versus Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.
    Author: Malick W, Fried JA, Masoumi A, Nair A, Zuver A, Huang A, Haythe J, Farr M, Rabbani L, Karmpaliotis D, Kirtane AJ, Topkara VK, Takeda K, Garan AR.
    Journal: Am J Cardiol; 2019 Dec 15; 124(12):1947-1953. PubMed ID: 31648782.
    Abstract:
    The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) neither benefits nor harms patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with cardiogenic shock (CS) but may stabilize those with chronic heart failure who decompensate into CS. We sought to compare its hemodynamic effects in these 2 populations. We performed a retrospective analysis of the hemodynamic effects of IABP for AMI or acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) patients with hemodynamic evidence of CS. The primary outcome was cardiac output (CO) change following insertion. In total, 205 patients were treated for CS resulting from AMI (73; 35.6%) or ADHF (132; 64.4%). At baseline, both cohorts had significant hemodynamic compromise with mean arterial pressure 75.6 ± 12.3 mm Hg, CO 3.02 ± 0.84 L/min, and cardiac power index 0.26 ± 0.06 W/m2; these parameters were nearly identical between groups though ADHF-CS patients had a higher pre-IABP mean pulmonary artery (PA) pressure than AMI-CS patients. After IABP insertion, ADHF-CS patients had moderate CO augmentation whereas AMI-CS experienced almost no improvement (0.58 ± 0.79 L/min vs 0.12 ± 1.00 L/min; p = 0.0009). Intracardiac filling pressures were reduced by similar amounts in both cohorts. Systemic vascular resistance was reduced in patients with ADHF-CS but not in those with AMI-CS. In conclusion, following IABP insertion, ADHF-CS patients experience roughly a 5-fold greater CO augmentation compared with AMI-CS patients. Pre-IABP PA pressure differences and differential systemic vascular resistance reduction may explain these results and shed light on recent evidence supporting IABP use in ADHF-CS and curbing it in AMI-CS.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]