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: Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of preoperative IABP in patients with ejection fraction of 0.25 or less. Author: Dietl CA, Berkheimer MD, Woods EL, Gilbert CL, Pharr WF, Benoit CH. Journal: Ann Thorac Surg; 1996 Aug; 62(2):401-8; discussion 408-9. PubMed ID: 8694598. Abstract: BACKGROUND: The purposes of this study are to determine whether patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction benefit from prophylactic insertion of an intraaortic balloon pump and to evaluate its cost-effectiveness. METHODS: Between January 1991 and December 1995, 163 consecutive patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.25 or less underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. An intraaortic balloon pump was inserted before operation in 37 patients (group A). The remaining 126 patients underwent operation without preoperative insertion of the device (group B). Preoperatively, 91.9% (34/37) of group A patients and 54.8% (69/126) of group B patients were in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV (p < 0.001). RESULTS: The 30-day mortality rate was 2.7% (1/37) and 11.9% (15/126) for groups A and B, respectively (p < 0.005). All deaths occurred in patients in functional class III or IV. In group B, 28 patients (22.2%) required an intraaortic balloon pump after cardiotomy for low cardiac output, 42.9% (12/28) of whom died. Median postoperative hospital stay was 9.9 days and 12.0 days, and mean hospital charges were $50,627 and $54,818 for survivors in groups A and B; respectively (p = not significant). CONCLUSIONS: Our experience suggests that patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting may benefit from preoperative intraaortic balloon pump insertion, especially patients in functional class III or IV. This approach improved survival significantly, reduced hospital stay, and was more cost-effective.[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]