Outcome of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Combined with Intraaortic Balloon Pump Hemodynamic Support during the Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Process for Patients with Cardiac Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction

Abstract

We evaluate the effect of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation combined with intraaortic balloon pump mechanical circulatory support for patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction during the PCI process. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation combined with intraaortic balloon pump hemodynamic support during the percutaneous coronary intervention process for patients with cardiac shock complicating acute myocardial infarction might play a complementary role. Yet, evidence of application of both devices at the same time remains unclear. Patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction who underwent PCI in our hospital from January 2015 to January 2018 were screened. Those who were under hemodynamic support of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation combined with intraaortic balloon pump were enrolled as the ECMO&IABP group, and the patients only under support of intraaortic balloon pump were enrolled as the IABP group. The differences of clinical prognosis between the two groups were compared. A total of 39 patients were enrolled into the study: 10 were in the ECMO&IABP group and 29 in the IABP group. Compared with the IABP group, more patients were complicated with old myocardial infarction (5/10 vs. 2/29, p = 0.002 ), more patients were diagnosed as non-ST elevated myocardial infarction (8/10 vs. 11/29, p = 0.002 ) and left ventricular ejecting fraction was lower (41.1 ± 9.86 vs. 48.55 ± 8.86, p = 0.03 ) in the ECMO&IABP group. Mechanical complications were higher in the ECMO&IABP group (5/10 vs. 5/29, p = 0.048 ), The survive rate in the ECMO&IABP group is higher than that in the IABP group (90.00% vs. 47.83%, p = 0.042 ) at one-year follow-up. Compared with only IABP, ECMO combined with IABP hemodynamic support during the PCI process for patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction enjoys better mortality outcome.

Effect of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support on Complex High-Risk Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Clinical Research Review of Progress and Outcomes

“…pted extensive exploration of its role in optimizing patient outcomes [17][18][19]. ECMO provides a means of maintaining systemic and pulmonary perfusion while allowing for temporary circulatory support, thereby enabling interventionalists to perform complex PCI procedures with enhanced hemodynamic stability [20].…”

“…The landscape of PCI has evolved to encompass increasingly complex cases, including high-risk elective interventions [19,33,34]. These cases demand a higher degree of technical expertise and a nuanced understanding of lesion characteristics, hemodynamics, and patient comorbidities [17].…”

Immunomodulatory Therapy for Giant Cell Myocarditis: A Narrative Review

“…In general, the evidence indicates that IABP therapy is associated with improved hemodynamics and coronary blood flow. IABP therapy may reduce cardiac afterload and improve diastolic inflow during intra-aortic balloon pumping, thereby providing hemodynamic stabilization and attenuating clinical disturbances of myocardial ischemia [101][102][103].…”

Retracted: Outcome of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Combined with Intraaortic Balloon Pump Hemodynamic Support during the Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Process for Patients with Cardiac Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction

“…Tis article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. Tis investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process:…”

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [ 1 ]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: Discrepancies in scope Discrepancies in the description of the research reported Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described Inappropriate citations Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article Peer-review manipulation …”