AHA 2018 | Use of Balloon Counterpulsation According to IABP-SHOCK II Trial

Following up on the 30 day and one year effect, the IABP-SHOCK II trial long term outcomes showed there is not benefit to the use of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation in cardiogenic shock patients undergoing acute myocardial infarction.

AHA 2018 | Utilidad del balón de contrapulsación según el IABP-SHOCK II trialThe only work in this group of patients with long term follow up is the SHOCK trial published in 2006, which started recruiting patients in 1999. Despite the long gap between the SHOCK which raises the question as to how to improve outcomes in this group of patients.

 

The IABP-SHOCK II was presented in the scientific sessions of the AHA meeting and simultaneously published in Circulation.


Read also: AHA 2018 | Endocarditis Prophylaxis More Limited after AHA 2007 Guidelines.


Between 2009 and 2012 the IABP-SHOCK II included 600 cardiogenic shock patients complicated with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary PCI randomized to intraaortic balloon counterpulsation vs. control.

 

The study was no table to show differences in survival between the groups, neither at 30 days not at one year.


Read also: AHA 2018 | Freedom Long-Term Follow-up: Still in Favor of CABG.


At mean 6.2 year follow-up (available in 98.5% of the population) researchers observed 66.3% mortality in the counterpulsation group 67% in the control group (p=0.98). Repeat infarction, stroke, repeat revascularization, rehospitalization for cardiac cause, quality of life and functional class also resulted the same in both branches.

 

Original title: Intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: long-term 6-year outcome of the randomized IABP-SHOCK II trial.

Reference: Thiele H et al. Circulation. 2018; Epub ahead of print.

 

shock-II


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

We are interested in your opinion. Please, leave your comments, thoughts, questions, etc., below. They will be most welcome.

More articles by this author

Coronary Artery Disease in Aortic Stenosis: CABG + SAVR vs. TAVR + PCI: Data from Spanish Centers

Multiple randomized studies have shown comparable or superior efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. coronary artery bypass graft (CABG).  However, many of...

Evolution of Small Balloon-Expandable Valves

Small aortic rings (20 mm) have posed a significant challenge for both surgery and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) due to their association with an...

TCT 2024 | FAVOR III EUROPA

The study FAVOR III EUROPA, a randomized trial, included 2,000 patients with chronic coronary syndrome, or stabilized acute coronary syndrome, and intermediate lesions. 1,008...

TCT 2024 – ECLIPSE: Randomized Study of Orbital Atherectomy vs Conventional PCI in Severely Calcified Lesions

Coronary calcification is associated with stent under-expansion and increased risk of both early and late adverse events. Atherectomy is an essential tool for uncrossable...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation: Surgical vs. Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair

While highly prevalent, tricuspid regurgitation is a notably undertreated valvulopathy. Its progression has been associated with higher mortality and significant disability. According to the...

ACCESS-TAVI: Comparing Post TAVR Vascular Closure Devices

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a well-established option to treat elderly patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. Technical advances and device development...

Endovascular Treatment of Iliofemoral Disease for the Improvement of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a significant risk factor in the development of difficult-to-treat conditions, such as heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)....