中国生物医学工程学会体外循环分会(Chinese Society of Extracorporeal Circulation,ChSECC)每年进行的中国心脏外科手术和体外循环数量调查工作已经连续进行了9年。调查报告以白皮书形式公开发布,旨在为体外循环专业学科发展、相关产...中国生物医学工程学会体外循环分会(Chinese Society of Extracorporeal Circulation,ChSECC)每年进行的中国心脏外科手术和体外循环数量调查工作已经连续进行了9年。调查报告以白皮书形式公开发布,旨在为体外循环专业学科发展、相关产业战略规划以及政务政策制定等方面提供参考信息。2019年我国(包括香港特别行政区)心血管外科手术及体外循环数据调查信息如下。展开更多
2021年初,中国生物医学工程学会体外循环分会(Chinese Society of Extracorporeal Circulation,ChSECC)对前一年的全国心脏外科手术和体外循环数量以及不同病种及地区的手术情况进行了相关调查,本文为2020年度我国(包括香港特别行政区)...2021年初,中国生物医学工程学会体外循环分会(Chinese Society of Extracorporeal Circulation,ChSECC)对前一年的全国心脏外科手术和体外循环数量以及不同病种及地区的手术情况进行了相关调查,本文为2020年度我国(包括香港特别行政区)心血管外科手术及体外循环数据的具体调查结果。展开更多
AIM: To assess the impact of percutaneous cardiac support in cardiogenic shock(CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction(AMI), treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: We selected all of the studie...AIM: To assess the impact of percutaneous cardiac support in cardiogenic shock(CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction(AMI), treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: We selected all of the studies published from January 1st, 1997 to May 15 st, 2015 that compared the following percutaneous mechanical support in patients with CS due to AMI undergoing myocardial revascularization:(1) intra-aortic balloon pump(IABP) vs Medical therapy;(2) percutaneous left ventricular assist devices(PLVADs) vs IABP;(3) complete extracorporeal life support with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation(ECMO) plus IABP vs IABP alone; and(4) ECMO plus IABP vs ECMO alone, in patients with AMI and CS undergoing myocardial revascularization. We evaluated the impact of the support devices on primary and secondary endpoints. Primary endpoint was the inhospital mortality due to any cause during the same hospital stay and secondary endpoint late mortality at 6-12 moof follow-up. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred and seventytwo studies met the initial screening criteria. After detailed review, only 30 were selected. There were 6 eligible randomized controlled trials and 24 eligible observational studies totaling 15799 patients. We found that the inhospital mortality was:(1) significantly higher with IABP support vs medical therapy(RR = +15%, P = 0.0002);(2) was higher, although not significantly, with PLVADs compared to IABP(RR = +14%, P = 0.21); and(3) significantly lower in patients treated with ECMO plus IABP vs IABP(RR =-44%, P = 0.0008) or ECMO(RR =-20%, P = 0.006) alone. In addition, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that in the comparison of IABP vs medical therapy, the sample size was adequate to demonstrate a significant increase in risk due to IABP. CONCLUSION: Inhospital mortality was significantly higher with IABP vs medical therapy. PLVADs did not reduce early mortality. ECMO plus IABP significantly reduced inhospital mortality compared to IABP.展开更多
文摘中国生物医学工程学会体外循环分会(Chinese Society of Extracorporeal Circulation,ChSECC)每年进行的中国心脏外科手术和体外循环数量调查工作已经连续进行了9年。调查报告以白皮书形式公开发布,旨在为体外循环专业学科发展、相关产业战略规划以及政务政策制定等方面提供参考信息。2019年我国(包括香港特别行政区)心血管外科手术及体外循环数据调查信息如下。
文摘2021年初,中国生物医学工程学会体外循环分会(Chinese Society of Extracorporeal Circulation,ChSECC)对前一年的全国心脏外科手术和体外循环数量以及不同病种及地区的手术情况进行了相关调查,本文为2020年度我国(包括香港特别行政区)心血管外科手术及体外循环数据的具体调查结果。
文摘AIM: To assess the impact of percutaneous cardiac support in cardiogenic shock(CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction(AMI), treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: We selected all of the studies published from January 1st, 1997 to May 15 st, 2015 that compared the following percutaneous mechanical support in patients with CS due to AMI undergoing myocardial revascularization:(1) intra-aortic balloon pump(IABP) vs Medical therapy;(2) percutaneous left ventricular assist devices(PLVADs) vs IABP;(3) complete extracorporeal life support with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation(ECMO) plus IABP vs IABP alone; and(4) ECMO plus IABP vs ECMO alone, in patients with AMI and CS undergoing myocardial revascularization. We evaluated the impact of the support devices on primary and secondary endpoints. Primary endpoint was the inhospital mortality due to any cause during the same hospital stay and secondary endpoint late mortality at 6-12 moof follow-up. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred and seventytwo studies met the initial screening criteria. After detailed review, only 30 were selected. There were 6 eligible randomized controlled trials and 24 eligible observational studies totaling 15799 patients. We found that the inhospital mortality was:(1) significantly higher with IABP support vs medical therapy(RR = +15%, P = 0.0002);(2) was higher, although not significantly, with PLVADs compared to IABP(RR = +14%, P = 0.21); and(3) significantly lower in patients treated with ECMO plus IABP vs IABP(RR =-44%, P = 0.0008) or ECMO(RR =-20%, P = 0.006) alone. In addition, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that in the comparison of IABP vs medical therapy, the sample size was adequate to demonstrate a significant increase in risk due to IABP. CONCLUSION: Inhospital mortality was significantly higher with IABP vs medical therapy. PLVADs did not reduce early mortality. ECMO plus IABP significantly reduced inhospital mortality compared to IABP.
