Impact and clinical outcome of intra-aortic balloon pump use during percutaneous coronary intervention
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-3758.2017.07.005
- VernacularTitle: 主动脉内球囊反搏在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中的应用
- Author:
Jingjing XU
1
;
Zhan GAO
;
Ying SONG
;
Yuanliang MA
;
Xiaofang TANG
;
Yi YAO
;
Chen HE
;
Huanhuan WANG
;
Yuejin YANG
;
Runlin GAO
;
Shubin QIAO
;
Bo XU
;
Jinqing YUAN
Author Information
1. Department of Cardiology, Fuwai Hospital and Cardiovascular Institute, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100037, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Angioplasty;
Intra-aortic balloon pump;
Prognosis
- From:
Chinese Journal of Cardiology
2017;45(7):572-578
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To observe the impact and clinical outcome of intra-aortic balloon pump(IABP) use in patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Methods:From January 2013 to December 2013, 10 724 consecutive patients undergoing PCI were enrolled.After 2 years′ follow-up, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events such as death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, revascularization, recurrent stroke were recorded, propensity score was used to match baseline data, and the clinical outcomes in patients with IABP and non-IABP were compared.
Results:The overall use of IABP was 1.3%(143/10 724), clinical and angiographic risks were significantly higher in IABP group than non-IABP group.The rate of cardiac shock was significantly higher (9.8%(14/143) vs. 0.2%(16/10 581), P<0.01) and left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly lower (54.3%±11.0% vs. 62.9%±7.2%, P<0.01) in the IABP group than in the non-IABP group.Patients in IABP group had a significantly higher rate of left main or triple-vessel disease (P<0.01), and their SYNTAX score, target lesion number, stent number were also significantly higher compared with non-IABP patients (all P<0.01). During the 2-year follow-up, all-cause mortality was significantly higher in IABP group than in non-IABP group (10.5%(15/142) vs. 1.1%(116/10 581), P<0.001). Multivariable analyses indicated that IABP was associated with increased mortality (HR=3.51, 95%CI 1.71-7.17, P=0.001). However, after propensity score matched analyses (137 pairs), IABP use was no longer an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (HR=2.09, 95%CI 0.72-6.13, P=0.177).
Conclusions:In this single large center of coronary heart disease in China, the IABP usage was about 1.3%.Propensity score matched analyses showed that during the 2 years′ follow-up, adverse effect including similar long-term mortality is similar between PCI patients with or without IABP after adjusting for confounders.
