Outcomes among patients requiring unplanned intra-aortic balloon pump reinsertion in cardiogenic shock.

MedStar author(s):
Citation: Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine. 15(3):137-40, 2014 Apr.PMID: 24661832Institution: MedStar Heart & Vascular InstituteForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal ArticleSubject headings: *Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping | *Shock, Cardiogenic/su [Surgery] | Aged | District of Columbia | Female | Hemodynamics | Hospital Mortality | Humans | Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping/ae [Adverse Effects] | Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping/mo [Mortality] | Logistic Models | Male | Middle Aged | Multivariate Analysis | Odds Ratio | Patient Selection | Reoperation | Retrospective Studies | Risk Assessment | Risk Factors | Shock, Cardiogenic/di [Diagnosis] | Shock, Cardiogenic/mo [Mortality] | Shock, Cardiogenic/pp [Physiopathology] | Treatment OutcomeLocal holdings: Available in print through MWHC library: 2002 - presentISSN:
  • 1878-0938
Name of journal: Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventionsAbstract: CONCLUSION: Among patients with CS undergoing IABP removal, hemodynamic deterioration requiring IABP reinsertion is associated with extremely poor outcomes and, in appropriate patients, should prompt consideration of more advanced cardiac support.Copyright � 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.INTRODUCTION: The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is the most frequently utilized form of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in cardiogenic shock (CS). Withdrawal of IABP support may precipitate hemodynamic compromise such that IABP reinsertion is required. Data are scarce regarding the incidence and outcomes of patients undergoing IABP reinsertion in this setting.METHODS: In this single-center retrospective study, we identified consecutive patients with CS in whom IABP reinsertion was required for hemodynamic decompensation. These patients were compared to matched controls in whom IABP withdrawal was successful. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality, while the secondary outcome measure was a composite of in-hospital death, need for advanced MCS or heart transplantation, or discharge to hospice.RESULTS: Among 222 patients requiring IABP for CS, we identified 20 case patients (incidence=9.0%) and 38 matched controls. Baseline characteristics were similar for the two groups. In-hospital mortality was 70% in the reinsertion group and 31% in the controls (Odds ratio (OR) 5.2, 95% CI 1.4-18.9, P=0.005). The composite secondary endpoint was also significantly more common in the reinsertion group than the controls (85% vs. 42%; OR 7.3, 95% CI 1.6-33.1, P=0.002). On multivariate analysis, the need for IABP reinsertion was independently associated with in-hospital mortality (OR 7.7, 95% CI 1.6-36.2, P=0.01).All authors: Chen F, Cooper HA, Howard EW, Steiner J, Torguson RDigital Object Identifier: Date added to catalog: 2015-03-17
Holdings
Item type Current library Collection Call number Status Date due Barcode
Journal Article MedStar Authors Catalog Article Available 24661832

Available in print through MWHC library: 2002 - present

CONCLUSION: Among patients with CS undergoing IABP removal, hemodynamic deterioration requiring IABP reinsertion is associated with extremely poor outcomes and, in appropriate patients, should prompt consideration of more advanced cardiac support.Copyright � 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION: The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is the most frequently utilized form of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in cardiogenic shock (CS). Withdrawal of IABP support may precipitate hemodynamic compromise such that IABP reinsertion is required. Data are scarce regarding the incidence and outcomes of patients undergoing IABP reinsertion in this setting.

METHODS: In this single-center retrospective study, we identified consecutive patients with CS in whom IABP reinsertion was required for hemodynamic decompensation. These patients were compared to matched controls in whom IABP withdrawal was successful. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality, while the secondary outcome measure was a composite of in-hospital death, need for advanced MCS or heart transplantation, or discharge to hospice.

RESULTS: Among 222 patients requiring IABP for CS, we identified 20 case patients (incidence=9.0%) and 38 matched controls. Baseline characteristics were similar for the two groups. In-hospital mortality was 70% in the reinsertion group and 31% in the controls (Odds ratio (OR) 5.2, 95% CI 1.4-18.9, P=0.005). The composite secondary endpoint was also significantly more common in the reinsertion group than the controls (85% vs. 42%; OR 7.3, 95% CI 1.6-33.1, P=0.002). On multivariate analysis, the need for IABP reinsertion was independently associated with in-hospital mortality (OR 7.7, 95% CI 1.6-36.2, P=0.01).

English

Powered by Koha