ライフサイエンスコーパス: IABP

1 IABP appears to be underutilized in patients presenting

2 IABP combines a more substantial effect on left ventricu

3 IABP derivatized TMs 5-7 and a peptide containing TM 1 t

4 IABP engagement increased LV peak pressure from 92+/-3 t

5 IABP patients transplanted under exception status have a

6 IABP use did not result in enhanced myocardial recovery

7 IABP use varied significantly across hospitals for high

8 IABP utilization has increased over 3-fold since the 201

9 IABPs were used in 18,990 (10.5%) of 181,599 high risk P

10 y label [125I]iodoazidobenzylpindolol ([125I]IABP).

11 control antagonist photoaffinity label [125I]IABP labeled both the large N-terminal fragment [contain

12 among the four groups: no TT, no IABP (18%); IABP only (70%); TT only (20%); TT and IABP (68%, p < 0.

13 le for 3 hours, then deactivated (n=11); (2) IABP and AT1R blockade (AT1RB; valsartan, 3 ng/kg/hr; n=

14 There were 68 (22%) IABP placements in 310 patients presenting with shock.

15 ntries: cardiac catheterisation (58 vs 23%); IABP (35 vs 7%); right-heart catheterisation (57 vs 22%)

16 r categories: no TT, no IABP (33%; n = 285); IABP only (33%; n = 279); TT only (15%; n = 132); and TT

17 venting with: 1) LV venting, 2) mAFP, and 3) IABP using multivariable logistic regression.

18 er hospital per year was 3.4, 12.7, and 37.4 IABPs at low-, intermediate-, and high-volume hospitals,

19 the four treatment groups: TT + IABP (47%), IABP only (52%), TT only (63%), no TT, no IABP (77%) (p

20 use occurred in the United States (59 of 68 IABP placements) involving 32% of U.S. patients presenti

21 %) received LV venting (65.5% mAFP and 29.9% IABP), and 525 (4.0%) had ABI.

22 ts, 3,399 (26.7%) received MU: 2,782 (82.9%) IABP and 580 (17.1%) pVAD.

23 Adult patients supported by an IABP who underwent HT between November 18, 2018, and Dec

24 was at least equal to that available from an IABP.

25 The hemodynamic effects of an IABP and a SMV in the same animal and in both normal and

26 therefore provide the proven benefits of an IABP in ambulant patients.

27 Placement of an IABP in AMI patients was most frequently indicated for c

28 ith documented hemodynamic improvement on an IABP were enrolled in a feasibility study.

29 the setting of cardiogenic shock received an IABP and 6.7% received O-MCS.

30 avascular microaxial LVAD (45.0%) vs with an IABP (34.1% [absolute risk difference, 10.9 percentage p

31 342 (8.6%) OHT patients were bridged with an IABP during the study period.

32 from the IABP-SHOCK II trial treated with an IABP or medical therapy.

33 luded; 492 (38.3%) were transplanted with an IABP under exception status.

34 ined hypotension in patients treated with an IABP versus those treated conservatively (28.9% vs. 29.2

35 tween 2013 and 2019 who were bridged with an IABP were stratified based on temporal relation to the p

36 racic aorta similar to that obtained with an IABP.

37 , PIONEER [Hemodynamic Support With ECMO and IABP in Elective Complex High-risk PCI, NCT04045873]) ma

38 corporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, and IABP support alone, and 72 patients (20.6%) were under m

39 axial LVAD was used in 6.2% of patients, and IABP was used in 29.9%.

40 6 months, mortality rates for both pMCS and IABP were 50% (hazard ratio: 1.04; 95% confidence interv

41 acute heart failure conditions, both SMV and IABP assist significantly increased MADP, mean diastolic

42 ommunity hospitals use both thrombolysis and IABP to treat patients with acute MI complicated by card

43 n = 279); TT only (15%; n = 132); and TT and IABP (19%; n = 160).

44 18%); IABP only (70%); TT only (20%); TT and IABP (68%, p < 0.0001); this influenced in-hospital mort

45 ation capability, a strategy of early TT and IABP followed by immediate transfer for PTCA or CABG may

46 856 patients were evaluated regarding TT and IABP utilization.

47 SMVs were connected to and IABPs were placed in the thoracic aorta of 12 anesthetiz

48 In the same animals, IABP assist increased MADP by 19.8+/-2.3%, mean diastoli

49 At IABP disengagement, a surge in MMP activity occurred in

50 ed O-MCS only, and 2747 (3.6%) received both IABP and O-MCS.

51 Derivatization of TMs 6 and 7 by IABP, IAPCGP, and ICYPdz suggests the folded conformatio

52 ed to receive early IABP plus standard care (IABP group) or standard care (control group).

53 Classifying IABP and percutaneous VAD as short-term MCS reduced the

54 e oxygenation, LVAD, other devices, combined IABP and intravascular microaxial LVAD, combined IABP an

55 and intravascular microaxial LVAD, combined IABP and other device (defined as TandemHeart, extracorp

56 ion to intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP group, 301 patients) or no intraaortic balloon coun

57 early intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) in patients presenting with cardiogenic shock comp

58 er of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) procedures performed at a given hospital per year

59 s for intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) use, patient demographics, concomitant medication

60 bining intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) with thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction

61 port, intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP), percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (P

62 intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) on in-hospital mortality rates of patients enrolle

63 ssociated with substantial mortality despite IABP counterpulsation.

64 Early IABP institution is associated with an increased risk of

65 Early IABP use occurred in 62 patients (20%) and none in 248 (

66 despite median use for three days, and early IABP discontinuation was required in only 2.1% of patien

67 enting with shock were classified into early IABP (insertion within one calendar day of enrollment) o

68 is study was to evaluate the effect of early IABP use vs standard care on 60-day survival or successf

69 ble for HRT were randomized to receive early IABP plus standard care (IABP group) or standard care (c

70 Patients receiving early IABP (< or = 6 h after thrombolytic therapy, n = 72) had

71 Routine early IABP plus standard care, compared with standard care, di

72 Despite more adverse events in the early IABP group and more episodes of moderate bleeding, this

73 s, mortality in patients treated with either IABP or pMCS was similar (50% and 46%, respectively; haz

74 Elective IABP insertion did not reduce the incidence of MACCE fol

75 Elective IABP use during PCI was associated with a 34% relative r

76 et of the population may benefit by elective IABP use and get good haemodynamic support, thus suggest

77 e occurred in 15.2% (23/151) of the elective IABP and 16.0% (24/150) of the no planned IABP groups (P

78 antly fewer deaths occurring in the elective IABP group (n=42) than in the group that underwent PCI w

79 cedural complications occurred with elective IABP insertion compared with no planned IABP use (1.3% v

80 were randomized to receive PCI with elective IABP support (n=151) or without planned IABP support (n=

81 r the nonexception and 88% for the exception IABP patients (hazard ratio: 1.85 [95% confidence interv

82 nsertion technique, and operator experience, IABP counterpulsation may be successfully employed for a

83 oups: 35.1% for Impella 2.5 versus 40.1% for IABP, P=0.227 in the intent-to-treat population and 34.3

84 been availability of randomized evidence for IABP use in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with cardi

85 traindications to or class I indications for IABP therapy were excluded.

86 o difference in odds of ABI or mortality for IABP vs. mAFP patients.

87 vs. 64%, p = 0.005), and those selected for IABP had a lower in-hospital mortality than those who di

88 0.24 W in comparison with -0.14+/-0.27 W for IABP (P=0.001).

89 deaths per 1000 patients treated at the high IABP hospitals.

90 into tertiles (low-, intermediate-, and high-IABP volume hospitals) according to the number of IABPs

91 rtality rate was significantly lower at high-IABP volume hospitals compared with low-IABP volume hosp

92 t an end stage in the heart failure history: IABP may provide sufficient hemodynamic support and prom

93 In the multivariate analysis, high hospital IABP volume for patients with acute myocardial infarctio

94 was comparable across quartiles of hospital IABP usage (Q1, Ref; Q2, odds ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.99-1.

95 found along with a corresponding decrease in IABP use and a significant hospital-level variation in M

96 We examined hospital variation in IABP use among high risk PCI patients, and determined th

97 However, this variation in IABP use was not associated with differences in in-hospi

98 ude mortality rate decreased with increasing IABP volume: 65.4%, lowest volume tertile; 54.1%, interm

99 sts across non-invasive (NIBP) and invasive (IABP) methods of assessment.

100 finity labels [125I]iodoazidobenzylpindolol (IABP), [125I]iodoazidophenyl CGP-12177A (IAPCGP), and [1

101 ospital mortality similar to those with late IABP (53% vs. 41%, n = 64, respectively, p = 0.172).

102 high-IABP volume hospitals compared with low-IABP volume hospitals.

103 ategorized as intravascular microaxial LVAD, IABP, TandemHeart, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation,

104 ation may underpin the rationale to maintain IABP as a valuable therapeutic option for patients with

105 Major IABP complications (major limb ischemia, severe bleeding

106 Major IABP complications occurred in only 2.7% of patients, de

107 Most IABP use occurred in the United States (59 of 68 IABP pl

108 within one calendar day of enrollment) or no IABP (insertion on or after day 2 or never).

109 es differed among the four groups: no TT, no IABP (18%); IABP only (70%); TT only (20%); TT and IABP

110 icians, fell into four categories: no TT, no IABP (33%; n = 285); IABP only (33%; n = 279); TT only (

111 ), IABP only (52%), TT only (63%), no TT, no IABP (77%) (p < 0.0001).

112 ther an Impella or a TandemHeart device (non-IABP group; N=44).

113 In non-IABP group (1) more patients could undergo entrainment/a

114 the procedure trended to be more in the non-IABP group when compared with those in the IABP group (3

115 patients, and determined the association of IABP use on mortality in this population.

116 In the propensity-matched cohort of IABP ( n = 231) vs. mAFP ( n = 231) patients, there was

117 tients were then randomized to 36 to 48 h of IABP (n = 211) or traditional care (n = 226).

118 ated complications, and clinical outcomes of IABP use in AMI are unknown.

119 In the modern-day practice of IABP, complication rates are generally low, although in-

120 tool for monitoring the evolving practice of IABP.

121 The probability of IABP and O-MCS use varied across hospitals, and the use

122 The predicted probability of IABP use varied significantly by site (hospital median 4

123 characteristics across hospital quartiles of IABP use.

124 The role of IABP in cardiogenic shock treatment remains unclear, and

125 9, P<0.001), followed by prophylactic use of IABP (OR=5.1), age >80 years (OR=3.2, compared with age

126 s and hospital-level variation in the use of IABP and O-MCS were evaluated.

127 dural complications necessitating the use of IABP are at particularly high risk.

128 ression analysis identified emergency use of IABP as the strongest predictors for stroke (OR=9.6, CI

129 hysiological benefits achieved by the use of IABP counterpulsation in these situations, all the recen

130 The use of IABP in patients with cardiogenic shock is widely accept

131 In this large national registry, the use of IABP in the setting of PCI for cardiogenic shock decreas

132 Proportional use of IABP varied significantly across hospital quartiles: Q1,

133 The most frequent indications for use of IABP were as follows: to provide hemodynamic support dur

134 t randomized trials have compared the use of IABP with different pVADs evaluating hemodynamic outcome

135 into quartiles by their proportional use of IABP.

136 volume hospitals) according to the number of IABPs performed at the given hospital per year.

137 The median number of IABPs performed per hospital per year was 3.4, 12.7, and

138 from 4.1% to 9.8%; P < .001), whereas use of IABPs significantly decreased (from 34.8% to 30.0%; P <

139 d as intravascular microaxial LVAD use only, IABP only, other (such as use of a percutaneous extracor

140 cating AMI were assigned to pMCS (n = 24) or IABP (n = 24).

141 Use of either an intravascular LVAD or IABP.

142 ve IABP and 16.0% (24/150) of the no planned IABP groups (P = .85; odds ratio [OR], 0.94 [95% confide

143 0% (P = .06) of the elective and no planned IABP groups, respectively.

144 tive IABP insertion compared with no planned IABP use (1.3% vs 10.7%, P < .001; OR, 0.11 [95% CI, 0.0

145 tive IABP support (n=151) or without planned IABP support (n=150).

146 the group that underwent PCI without planned IABP support (n=58) (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence

147 ve BNP levels as predictors of postoperative IABP use, hospital stay <or=10 days, and mortality <1 ye

148 by 43% (P=0.043) and the need for prolonged IABP support in male CABG and valve patients by 100% (P=

149 contrast to previous studies, a prophylactic IABP strategy after primary PTCA in hemodynamically stab

150 Patients with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP group; N=22) were compared with patients with eithe

151 emergency use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) (23.3% versus 3.3%, P<0.001).

152 cular function to intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) (n=226) or Impella 2.5 (n=226) support during none

153 ice compared with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and medical treatment in patients with AMI-CS.

154 ntemporary use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and other mechanical circulatory support (O-MCS) d

155 ck (SRCS) despite intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and/or high-dose vasopressor support.

156 le of prophylactic intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation after primary percutaneous transl

157 clinical usage of intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation, there is a paucity of randomized

158 n (AMI) requiring intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation.

159 AD) compared with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has been associated with increased risk of mortali

160 compared with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients with severe shock complicating AMI.

161 ted that elective intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) insertion may improve outcomes following high-risk

162 The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is the device that is in most common use to provid

163 The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is widely used to provide circulatory support for

164 The impact of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) on survival and successful bridging to heart repla

165 loading (MU) with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or percutaneous ventricular assist device (pVAD) c

166 y insertion of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) triggered at systole for 3 hours, then deactivated

167 ts (HTs) using an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) under exception status.

168 ility of elective intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use during high-risk percutaneous coronary interve

169 Trials on intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use in cardiogenic shock related to acute myocardi

170 , inotropes only, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), temporary ventricular assist device (VAD), durabl

171 us to that of the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP).

172 w pump (mAFP) and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP).

173 2.5 System Versus Intra Aortic Balloon Pump [IABP] in Patients Undergoing Non Emergent High Risk PCI)

174 , which included intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) and percutaneous ventricular assist devices (VAD)

175 Intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) frequently are used to provide hemodynamic support

176 iring the use of intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs) (mean BNP = 387 +/- 112 pg/ml vs. 181 +/- 25 pg/m

177 ices (LVADs) and intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs), are used in patients who undergo percutaneous co

178 as compared with intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs), little is known about clinical outcomes associat

179 nts bridged with intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs).

180 /vasopressors and intraaortic balloon pumps (IABPs).

181 ble, intra-arterial blood pressure readings (IABP) were included.

182 tal mortality than those who did not receive IABP (50% vs. 72%, p < 0.0001).

183 41 286 (54%) patients, 29 730 (39%) received IABP only, 2711 (3.5%) received O-MCS only, and 2747 (3.

184 The proportion of patients receiving IABP declined at an average rate of 0.3% per quarter, wh

185 axial LVAD were matched with those receiving IABP on demographics, clinical history, presentation, in

186 policy change, waitlisted patients requiring IABP support were more likely to survive to transplant (

187 h listing and transplant, patients requiring IABP, temporary VAD, and ECMO displayed the lowest funct

188 results do not support a strategy of routine IABP placement before PCI in all patients with severe le

189 Previous studies have suggested that routine IABP use after primary PTCA reduces infarct-related arte

190 Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock [IABP-SHOCK II], CardShock, Simplified Acute Physiology S

191 24 hours) intra-aortic balloon pump support (IABP), and prolonged intubation.

192 Molecular dynamics simulations predict that IABP, IAPCGP, and ICYPdz favor a folded conformation, wi

193 The IABP group and the control group did not differ signific

194 The IABP strategy conferred modest benefits in reduction of

195 The IABP-SHOCK II risk score can be easily calculated in dai

196 Hemodynamic parameters during the IABP- or the SMV-assisted beat were compared with those

197 tality in patients with CS, derived from the IABP-SHOCK II (Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic S

198 lity compared with matched patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial treated with an IABP or medical ther

199 tients were matched to 600 patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial.

200 la could be matched to 237 patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial.

201 n-IABP group when compared with those in the IABP group (32% versus 14%; P=0.143).

202 At 30 days, 119 patients in the IABP group (39.7%) and 123 patients in the control group

203 A total of 300 patients in the IABP group and 298 in the control group were included in

204 oint was reached in 43 patients (81%) in the IABP group and 36 patients (75%) in the control group (H

205 Validation in the IABP-SHOCK II registry population showed good discrimina

206 The hemodynamic effects of the IABP and the SMV were then reassessed.

207 tively, and remained elevated throughout the IABP period (P<0.05).

208 Limiting the analysis to IABP-treated patients as a control group did not change

209 leeding, balloon leak, death directly due to IABP insertion or failure) occurred in 2.6% of cases; in

210 ly assigned to standard care crossed over to IABP.

211 In total, 53 patients were randomized to IABP and 48 to standard care.

212 ise seen in patients with SRCS refractory to IABP and vasopressor support.

213 ables have been shown to predict response to IABP within this scenario, potentially guiding appropria

214 tality among the four treatment groups: TT + IABP (47%), IABP only (52%), TT only (63%), no TT, no IA

215 shock due to predominant LV failure with TT, IABP and revascularization by PTCA/CABG was associated w

216 th confirmed cardiogenic shock, 27 underwent IABP and 19 did not.

217 atients with cardiogenic shock who underwent IABP placement, mortality rate was significantly lower a

218 Of those patients who underwent IABP, there were only minor differences in baseline pati

219 Using IABP-SHOCK II (Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic S

220 uring the procedure when compared with using IABP.

221 ng (intravascular microaxial LVAD [31.3%] vs IABP [16.0%]; absolute risk difference, 15.4 percentage

222 To compare ABI risk of mAFP vs. IABP, propensity-score matching was performed.

223 have lower in-hospital mortality rates when IABP support is added to TT.

224 With IABP disengagement, segmental shortening (% change from

225 plant to follow-up in survivors bridged with IABP (40), temporary VADs (60), and ECMO (50) (each P <

226 Rates of bridging with IABP to OHT increased significantly after the policy cha

227 ersus 3.0+/-1.5; P=0.049) when compared with IABP group.

228 intravascular microaxial LVAD compared with IABP was associated with higher adjusted risk of in-hosp

229 [HR], 1.44; 95% CI, 1.21-1.71) compared with IABP.

230 ality, bleeding, KRT, and cost compared with IABP.

231 with reduced 30-day mortality compared with IABP.

232 erior hemodynamic support in comparison with IABP, with maximal decrease in cardiac power output from

233 la 2.5-supported patients in comparison with IABP: 40.6% versus 49.3%, P=0.066 in the intent-to-treat

234 MMP activity decreased with IABP in both groups.

235 2010 to 2019 and stratified them by MU with IABP or pVAD.

236 Compared to pVAD, MU with IABP was associated with similar mortality and lower com

237 Compared to pVAD, MU patients with IABP had similar mortality (aOR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.64-1.01

238 e events was not different for patients with IABP or Impella 2.5 hemodynamic support.

239 Excluding 26 patients with IABP placed prior to shock onset and 2 patients with inc

240 l group (41.3%) had died (relative risk with IABP, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.17; P=0.6

241 Patients treated with IABP also had a significantly higher overall hospital an

242 Patients treated with IABP had a significantly higher rate of community hospit

243 h of presentation, patients not treated with IABP tended to die earlier (6.8 +/- 5 vs. 23.8 +/- 19 h,

244 Patients treated with IABP were somewhat more likely to have prior MI and had

245 vascular microaxial LVADs only compared with IABPs only.

246 Thus, bridging patients to OHT with IABPs appears to be an effective strategy in the current