Drakos Stavros G, Anastasiou-Nana Maria I, Terrovitis John V, Tsagalou Eleftheria P, Kanakakis John, Ntalianis Argirios, Lazaris Nikolaos, Maroulidis George, Venetsanakos John, Bonios Michael, Nanas John N
University of Athens School of Medicine, 3rd Cardiology Department, Alexandra Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Coron Artery Dis. 2008 Nov;19(7):521-6. doi: 10.1097/MCA.0b013e3283109011.
When revascularization facilities are not available, thrombolytic therapy (TT) added to intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABC) has been proposed as initial therapy for the management of patients presenting with postmyocardial infarction (MI) cardiogenic shock, followed by prompt transfer to another institution for revascularization. The use of TT in this setting, however, remains controversial.
We reviewed the records of 81 consecutive patients admitted with cardiogenic shock after acute MI and compared the outcomes of patients initially stabilized, including IABC as an adjunct to TT (IABC+TT group, n=40), with those patients initially stabilized with IABC and no TT (IABC group, n=41).
The baseline characteristics of the two study groups were similar. The in-hospital and 6-month survival rates were 47.5 and 33.3% in the IABC+TT group versus 43.9 and 31.6% in the IABC group, respectively (NS). Except for mechanical ventilation more frequently required in the IABC group, other outcome measures were similar in both groups. The in-hospital (76.5 vs. 36.5%, P=0.008) and 6-month (60 vs. 25.4%, P=0.01) survival rates were significantly higher in patients who underwent delayed invasive revascularization, than in patients who underwent no invasive revascularization attempt.
In patients presenting with acute MI and cardiogenic shock, TT as an adjunct to IABC added no therapeutic benefit when compared with IABC alone. In contrast, the survival of patients was significantly increased by delayed invasive revascularization in both treatment groups. These observations suggest that, when revascularization facilities are not available, stabilization with IABC, followed by prompt transfer for delayed revascularization to a tertiary care hospital, might be the preferred management strategy for patients presenting with post-MI cardiogenic shock.
当无法进行血管重建时,有人提出在主动脉内球囊反搏(IABC)基础上加用溶栓治疗(TT)作为急性心肌梗死(MI)后心源性休克患者的初始治疗方法,随后迅速转至另一机构进行血管重建。然而,在这种情况下使用TT仍存在争议。
我们回顾了81例急性心肌梗死后心源性休克患者的病历,并比较了最初病情稳定患者的结局,其中包括将IABC作为TT辅助治疗的患者(IABC+TT组,n=40)和仅用IABC且未进行TT治疗而病情最初稳定的患者(IABC组,n=41)。
两个研究组的基线特征相似。IABC+TT组的院内生存率和6个月生存率分别为47.5%和33.3%,而IABC组分别为43.9%和31.6%(无显著差异)。除IABC组更频繁需要机械通气外,两组的其他结局指标相似。接受延迟有创血管重建的患者的院内生存率(76.5%对36.5%,P=0.008)和6个月生存率(60%对25.4%,P=0.01)显著高于未尝试进行有创血管重建的患者。
在急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克的患者中,与单独使用IABC相比,TT作为IABC的辅助治疗并无治疗益处。相反,在两个治疗组中,延迟有创血管重建均显著提高了患者的生存率。这些观察结果表明,当无法进行血管重建时,先用IABC稳定病情,随后迅速转至三级医院进行延迟血管重建,可能是急性心肌梗死后心源性休克患者的首选治疗策略。