Author + information
- Received December 11, 1996
- Revision received February 15, 1997
- Accepted February 28, 1997
- Published online June 1, 1997.
- Gregg W. Stone, MD, FACCA,*,
- Dominic Marsalese, MDB,
- Bruce R. Brodie, MD, FACCC,
- John J. Griffin, MD, FACCD,
- Bryan Donohue, MD, FACCE,
- Costantino Costantini, MDF,
- Carlos Balestrini, MDG,
- Thomas Wharton, MD, FACCH,
- Paolo Esente, MD, FACCI,
- Michael Spain, MD, FACCJ,
- Jeffrey Moses, MD, FACCK,
- Masakiyo Nobuyoshi, MDL,
- Mike Ayres, MD, FACCM,
- Denise Jones, RN, BSNB,
- Denise Mason, RN, BSNB,
- Lorelei Grines, PhDB,
- William W. O’Neill, MD, FACCB,
- Cindy L. Grines, MD, FACCB,
- on Behalf of the Second Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (PAMI-II) Trial Investigators1
- ↵*Dr. Gregg W. Stone, The Cardiovascular Institute, 2660 Grant Road, Mountain View, California 94040.
Objectives. A large, international, multicenter, prospective, randomized trial was performed to determine the role of prophylactic intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation after primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
Background. Previous studies have suggested that routine IABP use after primary PTCA reduces infarct-related artery reocclusion, augments myocardial recovery and improves clinical outcomes.
Methods. Cardiac catheterization was performed in 1,100 patients within 12 h of onset of AMI at 34 clinical centers. Clinical and angiographic variables were used to stratify patients undergoing primary PTCA into high and low risk groups. High risk patients were then randomized to 36 to 48 h of IABP (n = 211) or traditional care (n = 226). The study had 80% power to detect a reduction in the primary end point from 30% to 20%.
Results. There was no significant difference in the predefined primary combined end point of death, reinfarction, infarct-related artery reocclusion, stroke or new-onset heart failure or sustained hypotension in patients treated with an IABP versus those treated conservatively (28.9% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.95). The IABP strategy conferred modest benefits in reduction of recurrent ischemia (13.3% vs. 19.6%, p = 0.08) and subsequent unscheduled repeat catheterization (7.6% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.05) but did not reduce the rate of infarct-related artery reocclusion (6.7% vs. 5.5%, p = 0.64), reinfarction (6.2% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.46) or mortality (4.3% vs. 3.1%) and was associated with a higher incidence of stroke (2.4% vs. 0%, p = 0.03). IABP use did not result in enhanced myocardial recovery as assessed by paired admission to predischarge and 6-week rest and exercise left ventricular ejection fraction.
Conclusions. In contrast to previous studies, a prophylactic IABP strategy after primary PTCA in hemodynamically stable high risk patients with AMI does not decrease the rates of infarct-related artery reocclusion or reinfarction, promote myocardial recovery or improve overall clinical outcome.
(J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29:1459–67)
- Received December 11, 1996.
- Revision received February 15, 1997.
- Accepted February 28, 1997.
- The American College of Cardiology