Login
Search
Search
0 Dates
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
0 Events
CPC 2018
CPC 2019
Curso de Atualização em Medicina Cardiovascular 2019
Reunião Anual Conjunta dos Grupos de Estudo de Cirurgia Cardíaca, Doenças Valvulares e Ecocardiografia da SPC
CPC 2020
CPC 2021
CPC 2022
CPC 2023
CPC 2024
0 Topics
A. Basics
B. Imaging
C. Arrhythmias and Device Therapy
D. Heart Failure
E. Coronary Artery Disease, Acute Coronary Syndromes, Acute Cardiac Care
F. Valvular, Myocardial, Pericardial, Pulmonary, Congenital Heart Disease
G. Aortic Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Stroke
H. Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery
I. Hypertension
J. Preventive Cardiology
K. Cardiovascular Disease In Special Populations
L. Cardiovascular Pharmacology
M. Cardiovascular Nursing
N. E-Cardiology / Digital Health, Public Health, Health Economics, Research Methodology
O. Basic Science
P. Other
0 Themes
01. History of Cardiology
02. Clinical Skills
03. Imaging
04. Arrhythmias, General
05. Atrial Fibrillation
06. Supraventricular Tachycardia (non-AF)
07. Syncope and Bradycardia
08. Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD)
09. Device Therapy
10. Chronic Heart Failure
11. Acute Heart Failure
12. Coronary Artery Disease (Chronic)
13. Acute Coronary Syndromes
14. Acute Cardiac Care
15. Valvular Heart Disease
16. Infective Endocarditis
17. Myocardial Disease
18. Pericardial Disease
19. Tumors of the Heart
20. Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Cardiology
21. Pulmonary Circulation, Pulmonary Embolism, Right Heart Failure
22. Aortic Disease
23. Peripheral Vascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
24. Stroke
25. Interventional Cardiology
26. Cardiovascular Surgery
27. Hypertension
28. Risk Factors and Prevention
29. Rehabilitation and Sports Cardiology
30. Cardiovascular Disease in Special Populations
31. Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy
32. Cardiovascular Nursing
33. e-Cardiology / Digital Health
34. Public Health and Health Economics
35. Research Methodology
36. Basic Science
37. Miscellanea
0 Resources
Abstract
Slides
Vídeo
Report
CLEAR FILTERS
IABP in cardiogenic shock – aftermath 10 years apart from IABP-SHOCK trial
Session:
Posters (Sessão 1 - Écran 6) - Cuidados Intensivos em Síndromes Coronárias Agudas
Speaker:
Ana Margarida Martins
Congress:
CPC 2023
Topic:
E. Coronary Artery Disease, Acute Coronary Syndromes, Acute Cardiac Care
Theme:
13. Acute Coronary Syndromes
Subtheme:
13.4 Acute Coronary Syndromes – Treatment
Session Type:
Pósters Electrónicos
FP Number:
---
Authors:
Ana Margarida Martins; João R. Agostinho; Pedro Alves da Silva; Beatriz Valente Silva; Joana Brito; Catarina Oliveira; Beatriz Garcia; Catarina Gregório; Miguel Raposo; Ana Abrantes; João Fonseca; Rafael Santos; Tatiana Guimarães; Cláudia Jorge; Miguel Nobre de Menezes; Hugo Corte-Real; Fausto J.Pinto
Abstract
<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><strong>Introduction</strong></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><span style="font-size:11pt">Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) has a dismal prognosis. Theoretically, intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) could provide a hemodynamic benefit by afterload reduction and improvement in coronary perfusion, but, <span style="color:#212121"><span style="background-color:white">in 2012, </span></span>the IABP- SHOCK-II trial found no survival benefit. However, these results don’t always reflect real-world data and different centers practices. This study aimed to compare outcomes of AMI-CS pts who implanted IABP with a matched population without IABP.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><strong><span style="font-size:11pt">Methods</span></strong></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="background-color:white">Single center retrospective study was conducted. We searched for IABP use between 2012 and 2022 and selected pts with AMI-CS. Clinical, lab, echo and cath data were obtained at time of IABP and during FUP. IABP group (IABPG) was then compared with a case-controlled population matched by the type of AMI, age, ejection fraction and culprit vessel. Primary endpoint was defined as 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoint was defined as significant bleeding during hospital stay, peripheral ischemic complications, sepsis, stroke, anoxic encephalopathy and acute kidney injury (AKI). </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><strong><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="background-color:white">Results</span></span></span></strong></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="background-color:white">We enrolled 216 pts who had ACS-CS, 108 in each group. In the IABPG 67.6% were male, mean age of 67 </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="background-color:white">±</span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="background-color:white"> 12.9 years, whereas in the control group (CG) 73.1% were male, 67 </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="background-color:white">±</span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="background-color:white"> 11.6 years. In both groups, proportion of STEMI and NSTEMI was the same. In IABPG, 13 pts had mechanical complications (vs 5 in CG). IABP was used to perform LV unloading in 13 pts with ECMO therapy. Remainder characteristics are shown on table 1. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="background-color:white">30-day mortality rate was significantly higher in the IABPG (61.5% vs 48.1%; p=0.015) (fig. 1). </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="background-color:white">Despite selecting case control-matched pts, lactate levels were significantly different between them (IABPG 5.9 vs CG 3.4mmol/L; p=0.001), suggesting that clinical severity at time of IABP implantation was higher. To best correlate both groups, we selected the bottom half pts based on median lactate levels in the IABPG </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="color:black"><span style="background-color:white">(4,5 mmol/L</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="background-color:white">). The 2 groups matched according to lactate had no differences regarding 30-day mortality (50%vs 48.1%; p=0.87) (fig 2).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="background-color:white">We also compared IABP pts with ECMO with case-matched controls and noticed that survival rates were higher in the CG, without statistical </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="color:black"><span style="background-color:white">significance (69%vs 46%, </span></span></span><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="background-color:white">p=0.175) (fig 3).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="background-color:white">Regarding secondary endpoints, sepsis and vascular complications (p<0.001 and p=0.006) were higher in IABPG; conversely incidence of anoxic encephalopathy was lower in the IABPG (4.6% vs 13.2%, p=0.011). No differences were noted in respect to other endpoints.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><strong><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="background-color:white">Conclusion</span></span></span></strong></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:medium"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="color:#000000"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="color:#212121"><span style="background-color:white">In our population, IABP use failed to show benefit in 30-day mortality and was even associated with a higher death rate, which might be explained by the use of IABP in more severe cases. In fact, when comparing populations with similar lactate, there were no differences. The same was seen in pts who also had ECMO therapy. IABP is not free of complications and its use should be restricted to selected pts.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
Slides
Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease
Visit our site