Abstract
When revascularization facilities are not available, thrombolytic therapy (TT) added to intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABC) has been proposed as initial therapy for the management of patients presenting with postmyocardial infarction (MI) cardiogenic shock, followed by prompt transfer to another institution for revascularization. The use of TT in this setting, however, remains controversial. We reviewed the records of 81 consecutive patients admitted with cardiogenic shock after acute MI and compared the outcomes of patients initially stabilized, including IABC as an adjunct to TT (IABC+TT group, n=40), with those patients initially stabilized with IABC and no TT (IABC group, n=41). The baseline characteristics of the two study groups were similar. The in-hospital and 6-month survival rates were 47.5 and 33.3% in the IABC+TT group versus 43.9 and 31.6% in the IABC group, respectively (NS). Except for mechanical ventilation more frequently required in the IABC group, other outcome measures were similar in both groups. The in-hospital (76.5 vs. 36.5%, P=0.008) and 6-month (60 vs. 25.4%, P=0.01) survival rates were significantly higher in patients who underwent delayed invasive revascularization, than in patients who underwent no invasive revascularization attempt. In patients presenting with acute MI and cardiogenic shock, TT as an adjunct to IABC added no therapeutic benefit when compared with IABC alone. In contrast, the survival of patients was significantly increased by delayed invasive revascularization in both treatment groups. These observations suggest that, when revascularization facilities are not available, stabilization with IABC, followed by prompt transfer for delayed revascularization to a tertiary care hospital, might be the preferred management strategy for patients presenting with post-MI cardiogenic shock.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have