ライフサイエンスコーパス: IABP

1 IABP appears to be underutilized in patients presenting

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

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

4 IABP use did not result in enhanced myocardial recovery

5 IABP use varied significantly across hospitals for high

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24 racic aorta similar to that obtained with an IABP.

25 6 months, mortality rates for both pMCS and IABP were 50% (hazard ratio: 1.04; 95% confidence interv

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

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

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

29 18%); IABP only (70%); TT only (20%); TT and IABP (68%, p < 0.0001); this influenced in-hospital mort

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

31 856 patients were evaluated regarding TT and IABP utilization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

44 ssociated with substantial mortality despite IABP counterpulsation.

45 Early IABP institution is associated with an increased risk of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

64 0.24 W in comparison with -0.14+/-0.27 W for IABP (P=0.001).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

76 Major IABP complications (major limb ischemia, severe bleeding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

90 tool for monitoring the evolving practice of IABP.

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

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

93 characteristics across hospital quartiles of IABP use.

94 9, P<0.001), followed by prophylactic use of IABP (OR=5.1), age >80 years (OR=3.2, compared with age

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

104 into quartiles by their proportional use of IABP.

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

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

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

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

109 0% (P = .06) of the elective and no planned IABP groups, respectively.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

133 /vasopressors and intraaortic balloon pumps (IABPs).

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

135 41 286 (54%) patients, 29 730 (39%) received IABP only, 2711 (3.5%) received O-MCS only, and 2747 (3.

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

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

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

139 24 hours) intra-aortic balloon pump support (IABP), and prolonged intubation.

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

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

142 The IABP strategy conferred modest benefits in reduction of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

159 uring the procedure when compared with using IABP.

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

161 With IABP disengagement, segmental shortening (% change from

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

163 with reduced 30-day mortality compared with IABP.

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

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

166 MMP activity decreased with IABP in both groups.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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