• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

主动脉内球囊泵相关的住院病死率和并发症最低,Impella 相关的住院病死率和并发症最高,与严重程度或医院类型无关。

Intra-aortic balloon pump is associated with the lowest whereas Impella with the highest inpatient mortality and complications regardless of severity or hospital types.

机构信息

University of Arizona Sarver Heart Center, 1501 North Campbell Avenue, Tucson, Arizona, USA.

University of Arizona, College of Medicine, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.

出版信息

Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2024 Jul;39(3):252-261. doi: 10.1007/s12928-024-00993-8. Epub 2024 Mar 31.

DOI:10.1007/s12928-024-00993-8
PMID:38555535
Abstract

Impella and intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) are commonly utilized in patients with cardiogenic shock. However, the effect on mortality remains controversial. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of Impella and IABP on mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock the large Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was utilized to study any association between the use of IABP or Impella on outcome. ICD-10 codes for Impella, IABP, and cardiogenic shock for available years 2016-2020 were utilized. A total of 844,020 patients had a diagnosis of cardiogenic shock. A total of 101,870 patients were treated with IABP and 39645 with an Impella. Total inpatient mortality without any device was 34.2% vs only 25.1% with IABP use (OR = 0.65, CI 0.62-0.67) but was highest at 40.7% with Impella utilization (OR = 1.32, CI 1.26-1.39). After adjusting for 47 variables, Impella utilization remained associated with the highest mortality (OR: 1.33, CI 1.25-1.41, p < 0.001), whereas IABP remained associated with the lowest mortality (OR: 0.69, CI 0.66-0.72, p < 0.001). Separating rural vs teaching hospitals revealed similar findings. In patients with cardiogenic shock, the use of Impella was associated with the highest whereas IABP was associated with the lowest in-hospital mortality regardless of comorbid condition.

摘要

在患有心源性休克的患者中,通常会使用 Impella 和主动脉内球囊泵(IABP)。然而,它们对死亡率的影响仍然存在争议。本研究的目的是评估 Impella 和 IABP 对心源性休克患者死亡率的影响,研究了使用 IABP 或 Impella 与结果之间的任何关联,利用了全国住院患者样本(NIS)数据库。使用了 2016-2020 年可用的 Impella、IABP 和心源性休克的 ICD-10 代码。共有 844020 例患者被诊断为心源性休克。共有 101870 例患者接受了 IABP 治疗,39645 例患者接受了 Impella 治疗。没有任何设备的总住院死亡率为 34.2%,而使用 IABP 的死亡率仅为 25.1%(OR=0.65,CI 0.62-0.67),但使用 Impella 的死亡率最高,为 40.7%(OR=1.32,CI 1.26-1.39)。在调整了 47 个变量后,Impella 的使用仍然与最高的死亡率相关(OR:1.33,CI 1.25-1.41,p<0.001),而 IABP 仍然与最低的死亡率相关(OR:0.69,CI 0.66-0.72,p<0.001)。将农村与教学医院分开显示出类似的发现。在心源性休克患者中,无论合并症情况如何,使用 Impella 与最高的住院死亡率相关,而使用 IABP 与最低的住院死亡率相关。

相似文献

1
Intra-aortic balloon pump is associated with the lowest whereas Impella with the highest inpatient mortality and complications regardless of severity or hospital types.主动脉内球囊泵相关的住院病死率和并发症最低,Impella 相关的住院病死率和并发症最高,与严重程度或医院类型无关。
Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2024 Jul;39(3):252-261. doi: 10.1007/s12928-024-00993-8. Epub 2024 Mar 31.
2
In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation With Concomitant Use of Impella vs. Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump - A Retrospective Cohort Study Using a Japanese Claims-Based Database.在使用依拉通(Impella)与主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)辅助的心肺复苏后并发心源性休克的患者中,院内死亡率与使用依拉通(Impella) vs. 主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)辅助治疗 - 使用日本索赔数据库的回顾性队列研究。
Circ J. 2024 Jul 25;88(8):1276-1285. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-23-0758. Epub 2024 Jan 12.
3
Trends in mechanical circulatory support use and hospital mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction and non-infarction related cardiogenic shock in the United States.美国急性心肌梗死合并非梗死相关心原性休克患者应用机械循环支持治疗的趋势和院内死亡率。
Clin Res Cardiol. 2018 Apr;107(4):287-303. doi: 10.1007/s00392-017-1182-2. Epub 2017 Nov 13.
4
Comparative Healthcare Resource Utilization of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Using Impella Versus Intra-aortic Balloon Pump Use for Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: Insights From National Inpatient Sample.使用Impella与主动脉内球囊泵对接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的急性冠状动脉综合征和心源性休克患者进行经皮机械循环支持的医疗资源利用比较:来自全国住院患者样本的见解
Curr Probl Cardiol. 2024 Jan;49(1 Pt A):102053. doi: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2023.102053. Epub 2023 Aug 26.
5
Mechanical circulatory support versus vasopressors alone in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.机械循环支持与单独使用血管加压素在接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的急性心肌梗死合并心原性休克患者中的比较。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2024 Jan;103(1):30-41. doi: 10.1002/ccd.30913. Epub 2023 Nov 23.
6
Association of Use of an Intravascular Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-aortic Balloon Pump With In-Hospital Mortality and Major Bleeding Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.血管内微型轴流左心室辅助装置与主动脉内球囊泵在急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克患者中的应用与院内死亡率和大出血的关系。
JAMA. 2020 Feb 25;323(8):734-745. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0254.
7
Impella Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.经皮 Impella 辅助治疗伴心原性休克的急性心肌梗死。
Circulation. 2019 Mar 5;139(10):1249-1258. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.036614.
8
Safety and efficacy of mechanical circulatory support with Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention and/or cardiogenic shock: Insights from a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.机械循环支持联合 Impella 或主动脉内球囊泵在高危经皮冠状动脉介入治疗和/或心源性休克中的安全性和疗效:来自随机试验网络荟萃分析的见解。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Apr 1;97(5):E636-E645. doi: 10.1002/ccd.29236. Epub 2020 Sep 7.
9
Percutaneous coronary intervention with Impella support with and without intra-aortic balloon in cardiogenic shock patients.在心源休克患者中,使用和不使用主动脉内球囊的情况下,采用Impella支持进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗。
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2023 Oct;55:68-73. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2023.04.002. Epub 2023 Apr 8.
10
Impella Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Treated With Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: An Observational Study.心源性休克患者接受静脉-动脉体外膜肺氧合治疗时,Impella与主动脉内球囊泵的比较:一项观察性研究。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2024 Feb 6;13(3):e032607. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.123.032607. Epub 2024 Jan 19.

引用本文的文献

1
Use of a Pulmonary Artery Catheter in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.肺动脉导管在心源性休克患者中的应用——一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Circ Rep. 2025 Jul 8;7(8):589-598. doi: 10.1253/circrep.CR-25-0088. eCollection 2025 Aug 8.
2
Combined Risk Stratification With Patient Characteristics and Biomarkers in Patients Treated With the Impella for Cardiogenic Shock.在接受Impella治疗的心源性休克患者中结合患者特征和生物标志物进行联合风险分层
J Am Heart Assoc. 2025 May 6;14(9):e040487. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.124.040487. Epub 2025 Apr 25.

本文引用的文献

1
Complications and Outcomes of Impella Treatment in Cardiogenic Shock Patients With and Without Acute Myocardial Infarction.在伴有和不伴有急性心肌梗死的心源性休克患者中使用 Impella 治疗的并发症和结果。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2023 Sep 5;12(17):e030819. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.123.030819. Epub 2023 Aug 30.
2
Extracorporeal Life Support in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock.体外生命支持在与梗死相关的心原性休克中的应用。
N Engl J Med. 2023 Oct 5;389(14):1286-1297. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2307227. Epub 2023 Aug 26.
3
Comparative Effectiveness of Percutaneous Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump or No Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock.
经皮微轴左心室辅助装置与主动脉内球囊泵或无机械循环支持治疗心源性休克患者的比较效果。
JAMA Cardiol. 2023 Aug 1;8(8):744-754. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2023.1643.
4
Impella Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for High-Risk PCI: A Propensity-Adjusted Large-Scale Claims Dataset Analysis.Impella 与主动脉内球囊泵在高危 PCI 中的应用:倾向调整的大规模索赔数据集分析。
Am J Cardiol. 2022 Dec 15;185:29-36. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.08.032. Epub 2022 Oct 7.
5
Clinical Outcomes and Cost Associated With an Intravascular Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-aortic Balloon Pump in Patients Presenting With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.临床结局和成本与血管内微轴左心室辅助装置与主动脉内球囊泵在急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克患者。
JAMA Intern Med. 2022 Sep 1;182(9):926-933. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.2735.
6
Use of Impella device in cardiogenic shock and its clinical outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Impella装置在心源性休克中的应用及其临床结局:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2022 Mar 25;40:101007. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2022.101007. eCollection 2022 Jun.
7
Mortality in cardiogenic shock patients receiving mechanical circulatory support: a network meta-analysis.机械循环支持治疗心原性休克患者的死亡率:网状荟萃分析。
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2022 Feb 13;22(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s12872-022-02493-0.
8
A Comparison of In-Hospital Outcomes Between the Use of Impella and IABP in Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中急性心肌梗死合并心原性休克应用 Impella 与 IABP 的院内转归比较。
J Invasive Cardiol. 2022 Feb;34(2):E98-E103. doi: 10.25270/jic/21.00096.
9
Intra-aortic balloon pump versus percutaneous Impella in emergency revascularisation for myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: systematic review.主动脉内球囊泵与经皮 Impella 在心肌梗死和心源性休克的紧急血运重建中的比较:系统评价。
Perfusion. 2024 Jan;39(1):45-59. doi: 10.1177/02676591211037026. Epub 2021 Sep 3.
10
Analysis of Adverse Events Related to Impella Usage (from the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience and National Inpatient Sample Databases).分析与 Impella 使用相关的不良事件(来自制造商和用户设施设备经验以及国家住院患者样本数据库)。
Am J Cardiol. 2021 Feb 1;140:91-94. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.10.056. Epub 2020 Nov 2.