Impella与IABP治疗急性心肌梗死致心源性休克的临床观察

摘要

Objective To investigate the clinical outcomes of the ventricular assist device (Impella) vs intra?aortic balloon pump (IABP) in the treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods The clinical outcomes of AMI patients with cardiogenic shock treated with Impella or IABP in the Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical College,Chengwu Hospital Affiliated to Taishan Medical College and the Yuncheng County People’s Hospital were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were recorded for clinical manifestations and compared for the 30?day mortality. Results A total of 54 patients were enrolled in our study,including 24 patients treated with Impella and 30 others with IABP. All patients underwent PCI before operation,and the mortality rate was similar at 30 days (45.8% and 46.7%,respectively). However,frequency of bleeding was higher in patients treated with Impella. Conclusion There is no significant difference in the treatment efficacy between Impella and intra?aortic balloon pump in AMI patients with cardiogenic shock.%目的 探讨心室辅助装置Impella和主动脉内球囊反搏(intra?aortic balloon pump,IABP)治疗急性心肌梗死(acute myocardial infarction,AMI)致心源性休克重症患者的临床结局.方法 回顾性分析济宁医学院附属医院、泰山医学院附属成武医院和郓城县人民医院行Impella和IABP术AMI合并心源性休克患者的治疗结局,分析其临床表现,并比较其30d内的全因死亡率.结果 54名患者纳入我们的研究,其中Impella患者24例,IABP患者30例,术前患者均行PCI术,30 d全因死亡率相近(分别为45.8%和46.7%),但Impella治疗患者出血频次更高.结论 心肌梗死患者心源性休克后,Impella与主动脉内球囊反搏治疗的有效性并无明显差异.