Why the study?
Does external counterpulsation improve survival in patients with cardiogenic shock following myocardial infarction?
Does external counterpulsation improve survival in patients with cardiogenic shock following myocardial infarction?
External counterpulsation may significantly improve survival in patients with cardiogenic shock following myocardial infarction compared to historical controls.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Does not support changing practice in post-MI cardiogenic shock; hypothesis-generating observation requiring prospective confirmation.
Twenty patients in cardiogenic shock following myocardial infarction were treated with external counterpulsation. Eleven patients died during or soon after treatment. One patient survived for three days and another for three weeks; both died in the hospital of complications apparently unrelated to counterpulsation. Seven patients were discharged from the hospital and remained well. The patients who responded to external counterpulsation did so within the first few hours. There seemed to be no benefit in applying counterpulsation for more than six hours. Sequential analysis of mortality statistics indicated that the 45% survival rate (which included the two short-term survivors) was a significant improvement (P<.01) over the usual 15% survival rate in cases of cardiogenic shock. (JAMA229:1441-1450, 1974)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Harry S. Soroff (1974) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: