Why the study?
Does intra-aortic balloon pump improve survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock undergoing PCI?
Population
653 patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous…
Comparison
Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) vs No intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP)
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
In-hospital
Key result
Intra-aortic balloon pump use during PCI for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock was not associated with improved in-hospital survival (OR 1.47; 95% CI 0.97-2.21; p=0.07).
Authors
Loading...
Does not support routine IABP use in AMI-cardiogenic shock PCI; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Observational (n=653)
Yes
Does intra-aortic balloon pump improve survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock undergoing PCI?
Effect estimate: OR 1.47 (95% CI 0.97-2.21)
Absolute Event Rate: 56.9% vs 36.1%
p-value: p=0.07
In real-world practice, the use of an intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock undergoing PCI was not associated with improved in-hospital survival.
Zeymer et al. (2011) conducted an observational in Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (n=653). Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) vs. No IABP was evaluated on In-hospital mortality (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.97-2.21, p=0.07). Intra-aortic balloon pump use during PCI for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock was not associated with improved in-hospital survival (OR 1.47; 95% CI 0.97-2.21; p=0.07).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: