Why the study?
Does routine use of an intraaortic balloon pump improve survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock undergoing revascularization?
Does routine use of an intraaortic balloon pump improve survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock undergoing revascularization?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Routine use of an intraaortic balloon pump does not improve survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, providing evidence to overturn existing guidelines.
Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction continues to be a devastating event associated with extremely high mortality. The results of the Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) trial,1 now reported in the Journal, show that in patients with acute myocardial infarction and hemodynamic compromise who undergo revascularization, the routine use of an intraaortic balloon pump (IABP), as compared with standard therapy, does not improve survival.1 Introduced nearly five decades ago,2 IABP is now routinely used as an adjuvant treatment for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, on the basis of evidence that it is associated with hemodynamic . . .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
O’Connor et al. (2012) conducted an editorial in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) vs. standard therapy was evaluated on survival.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: