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

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...

TCT 2024 | Use of Drug-Coated Balloons for Side Branch Treatment in Provisional Stenting

In some cases, treating coronary bifurcations with provisional stenting requires side branch stenting, which may lead to suboptimal outcomes. Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have emerged...

TCT 2024 | Use of Artificial Intelligence for Patients with Suspected Coronary Artery Disease

The current approach to chest pain mainly focuses on symptom characteristics, conducting functional tests for ischemia assessment. However, several randomized clinical trials have shown...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

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 | TRISCEND II

This randomized study included 400 patients; 267 were treated with EVOQUE valve and 133 with optimal medical treatment (OMT). After one-year follow-up, there were no...

TCT 2024 – ACCESS-TAVI: Comparing Percutaneous Access Closure Strategies After TAVI

Vascular access complications following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remain common. However, few studies compare vascular access closure methods.  Based on the CHOICE-CLOSURE and MASH...