Kovack P J, Rasak M A, Bates E R, Ohman E M, Stomel R J
Division of Cardiology, Botsford General Hospital, Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997 Jun;29(7):1454-8. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(97)82537-5.
We sought to explore the potential benefit of combining intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) with thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock.
In community hospitals, this condition is usually managed with thrombolysis alone.
We reviewed the charts of 335 patients from two community hospitals who presented with acute MI and had cardiogenic shock between 1985 and 1995.
Of 46 patients who underwent thrombolysis within 12 h of acute infarction with confirmed cardiogenic shock, 27 underwent IABP and 19 did not. Age, systolic blood pressure with shock, pulmonary artery catheter use, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure and the incidence of diabetes mellitus and anterior MI did not differ between groups. Patients treated with IABP were somewhat more likely to have prior MI and had a significantly greater cardiac index (2.0 vs. 1.5 liters/min per m2, p = 0.04). Although no deaths occurred within 2 h of presentation, patients not treated with IABP tended to die earlier (6.8 +/- 5 vs. 23.8 +/- 19 h, p = 0.13). Patients treated with IABP had a significantly higher rate of community hospital survival (93% vs. 37%, p = 0.0002), and more of them were transferred for revascularization (85% vs. 37%). Of 30 patients transferred for revascularization, 27 underwent angioplasty or bypass surgery; hospital survival was 74%. Patients treated with IABP also had a significantly higher overall hospital and 1-year survival rate (67% vs. 32%, p = 0.019).
Survival may be enhanced and transfer for revascularization facilitated when community hospitals use both thrombolysis and IABP to treat patients with acute MI complicated by cardiogenic shock.
我们试图探讨主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)联合溶栓治疗急性心肌梗死(MI)合并心源性休克的潜在益处。
在社区医院,这种情况通常仅采用溶栓治疗。
我们回顾了1985年至1995年间两家社区医院335例急性MI并发生心源性休克患者的病历。
在46例急性梗死12小时内接受溶栓且确诊为心源性休克的患者中,27例接受了IABP治疗,19例未接受。两组患者的年龄、休克时的收缩压、是否使用肺动脉导管、肺毛细血管楔压以及糖尿病和前壁MI的发生率无差异。接受IABP治疗的患者既往有MI的可能性略高,且心脏指数显著更高(2.0对1.5升/分钟每平方米,p = 0.04)。虽然就诊后2小时内无死亡病例,但未接受IABP治疗的患者死亡时间往往更早(6.8±5对23.8±19小时,p = 0.13)。接受IABP治疗的患者社区医院生存率显著更高(93%对37%,p = 0.0002),且更多患者被转送去进行血运重建(85%对37%)。在30例被转送去进行血运重建的患者中,27例接受了血管成形术或搭桥手术;医院生存率为74%。接受IABP治疗的患者总体医院生存率和1年生存率也显著更高(67%对32%,p = 0.019)。
当社区医院使用溶栓和IABP联合治疗急性MI合并心源性休克的患者时,可能会提高生存率并促进转送去进行血运重建。