PLoS ONE (Jan 2016)

Benefits of Intraaortic Balloon Support for Myocardial Infarction Patients in Severe Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Coronary Revascularization.

  • Chun-Tai Mao,
  • Jian-Liang Wang,
  • Dong-Yi Chen,
  • Ming-Lung Tsai,
  • Yu-Sheng Lin,
  • Wen-Jin Cherng,
  • Chao-Hung Wang,
  • Ming-Shien Wen,
  • I-Chang Hsieh,
  • Ming-Jui Hung,
  • Chun-Chi Chen,
  • Tien-Hsing Chen

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160070
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 11, no. 8
p. e0160070

Abstract

Read online

Prior studies have suggested intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) have a neutral effect on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). However, the effects of IABP on patients with severe CS remain unclear. We therefore investigated the benefits of IABP in AMI patients with severe CS undergoing coronary revascularization.This study identified 14,088 adult patients with AMI and severe CS undergoing coronary revascularization from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2011, dividing them into the IABP group (n = 7044) and the Nonusers group (n = 7044) after propensity score matching to equalize confounding variables. The primary outcomes included myocardial infarction(MI), cerebrovascular accidents or cardiovascular death. In-hospital events including dialysis, stroke, pneumonia and sepsis were secondary outcomes. Primary outcomes were worse in the IABP group than in the Nonusers group in 1 month (Hazard ratio (HR) = 1.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.84-2.12). The MI rate was higher in the IABP group (HR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.16-1.79), and the cardiovascular death was much higher in the IABP group (HR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.92-2.23). The IABP users had lower incidence of dialysis (8.5% and 9.5%, P = 0.04), stroke (2.6% and 3.8%, P<0.001), pneumonia (13.9% and 16.5%, P<0.001) and sepsis (13.2% and 16%, P<0.001) during hospitalization than Nonusers.The use of IABP in patients with myocardial infarction and severe cardiogenic shock undergoing coronary revascularization did not improve the outcomes of recurrent myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death. However, it did reduce the incidence of dialysis, stroke, pneumonia and sepsis during hospitalization.