Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

What is the evidence for IABP in STEMI with and without cardiogenic shock?

View through CrossRef
Intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) is the most widely used left ventricular support device in a variety of indications. This review focuses on the current literature and discusses the evidence of IABP in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with and without cardiogenic shock. In high-risk STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock several randomized clinical trials have been performed. The majority of the studies could not demonstrate an efficacy benefit for IABP as adjunctive therapy in comparison to standard treatment alone. Hence, recent meta-analyses could not reveal diverging mortality rates at a higher incidence of stroke and major bleedings with IABP use independent of the type of reperfusion therapy. IABP in STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock is recommended according to current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (AHA/ACC) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines. In recent meta-analyses, IABP in cardiogenic shock complicated by STEMI has been shown to be associated with decreased mortality. However, these beneficial effects are limited to patients treated with thrombolysis, whereas in patients undergoing mechanical revascularization IABP therapy is associated with an increase in mortality. Nevertheless, these data only arise from prospective and retrospective cohort studies, as up to date only one very small randomized clinical trial has been completed. In summary, in high-risk STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock, current data do not support the use of IABP and should only be considered as a standby and bailout strategy if patients develop haemodynamic instability. Current data on IABP in patients with cardiogenic shock complicated by STEMI are scarce and highly limited due to the nonrandomized design of previous trials. However, according to current AHA/ACC and ESC guidelines its use is recommended. Although recent meta-analyses challenge current AHA/ACC/ESC guidelines, adequately powered randomized studies are needed to elucidate the role of IABP in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
Title: What is the evidence for IABP in STEMI with and without cardiogenic shock?
Description:
Intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) is the most widely used left ventricular support device in a variety of indications.
This review focuses on the current literature and discusses the evidence of IABP in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with and without cardiogenic shock.
In high-risk STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock several randomized clinical trials have been performed.
The majority of the studies could not demonstrate an efficacy benefit for IABP as adjunctive therapy in comparison to standard treatment alone.
Hence, recent meta-analyses could not reveal diverging mortality rates at a higher incidence of stroke and major bleedings with IABP use independent of the type of reperfusion therapy.
IABP in STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock is recommended according to current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (AHA/ACC) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines.
In recent meta-analyses, IABP in cardiogenic shock complicated by STEMI has been shown to be associated with decreased mortality.
However, these beneficial effects are limited to patients treated with thrombolysis, whereas in patients undergoing mechanical revascularization IABP therapy is associated with an increase in mortality.
Nevertheless, these data only arise from prospective and retrospective cohort studies, as up to date only one very small randomized clinical trial has been completed.
In summary, in high-risk STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock, current data do not support the use of IABP and should only be considered as a standby and bailout strategy if patients develop haemodynamic instability.
Current data on IABP in patients with cardiogenic shock complicated by STEMI are scarce and highly limited due to the nonrandomized design of previous trials.
However, according to current AHA/ACC and ESC guidelines its use is recommended.
Although recent meta-analyses challenge current AHA/ACC/ESC guidelines, adequately powered randomized studies are needed to elucidate the role of IABP in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

Related Results

IABP before cardiac surgery: clinical benefit compared to intraoperative implantation
IABP before cardiac surgery: clinical benefit compared to intraoperative implantation
Background: The aim of this study was to determine whether preoperative compared to intraoperative intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) is advantageous ...
Arrythmic storm in patients with and without a myocardial infarction
Arrythmic storm in patients with and without a myocardial infarction
Abstract Introduction Available data on arrhythmic storm (AS) is frequently obtained from retrospective observational series of ...
Characteristics and outcomes of combination VA-ECMO for cardiogenic shock
Characteristics and outcomes of combination VA-ECMO for cardiogenic shock
Abstract Background Use of VA-ECMO for cardiogenic shock is growing exponentially. The impact of VA-ECMO on in-hospital mortalit...
Influences of Intraaortic Balloon Pumping on Peripheral Hemodynamics
Influences of Intraaortic Balloon Pumping on Peripheral Hemodynamics
The influences of intraaortic balloon pumping (IABP) on peripheral hemodynamics were assessed by Doppler techniques. The subjects were 21 patients requiring postoperative IABP supp...
Comparison of Short- and Long-Term Prognosis between ST-Elevation and Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Comparison of Short- and Long-Term Prognosis between ST-Elevation and Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Background: Available data comparing long-term prognosis according to the type of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are scarce, contradictory, and outdated. Our aim was to compare shor...
Prognostic value of Intermountain Risk Score for short- and long-term mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock
Prognostic value of Intermountain Risk Score for short- and long-term mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock
Background There is a lack of current research examining the predictive value of the Intermountain Risk Score (IMRS) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial in...

Back to Top