Why the study?
Does arterial counterpulsation improve survival more in patients with continuing myocardial ischemia compared to those without, following acute myocardial infarction?
Does arterial counterpulsation improve survival more in patients with continuing myocardial ischemia compared to those without, following acute myocardial infarction?
Arterial counterpulsation provides significantly better short- and long-term survival in acute myocardial infarction patients when used specifically to relieve continuing myocardial ischemia rather than just refractory heart failure.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Continuing ischemia may identify AMI patients likelier to survive arterial counterpulsation; observational data leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
Twenty-six patients underwent arterial counterpulsation for refractory heart failure without shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Patients were divided into a group of 12 with continuing myocardial ischaemia, evidenced by anginal pain associated with abnormal ST segment elevation, and a group of 14 without continuing ischaemia. Clinical features (apart from pain) and prognostic indices were similar in the two groups when counterpulsation was started but short- and long-term results were different. Hospital survival was 92 per cent (11/12) and 43 per cent (6/14), respectively, in the groups with and without ischaemia and four-year survival was 73 per cent and 7 per cent. Counterpulsation is of greatest value in acute infarction when used to relieve myocardial ischaemia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sammel et al. (1979) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: