Literature DB >> 10985710

Cardiogenic shock with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded coronaries for Cardiogenic shocK?

A K Jacobs1, J K French, J Col, L A Sleeper, J N Slater, L Carnendran, J Boland, X Jiang, T LeJemtel, J S Hochman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (MI).
BACKGROUND: Such patients represent a high-risk (ST-segment depression) or low-risk (normal or nonspecific electrocardiographic findings) group for whom optimal therapy, particularly in the setting of shock, is unknown.
METHODS: We assessed characteristics and outcomes of 881 patients with CS due to predominant left ventricular (LV) dysfunction in the SHOCK Trial Registry.
RESULTS: Patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI (n = 152) were significantly older and had significantly more prior MI, heart failure, azotemia, bypass surgery, and peripheral vascular disease than patients with ST-elevation MI (n = 729). On average, the groups had similar in-hospital LV ejection fractions (approximately 30%), but patients with non-ST-elevation MI had a lower highest creatine kinase and were more likely to have triple-vessel disease. Among patients selected for coronary angiography, the left circumflex artery was the culprit vessel in 34.6% of non-ST-elevation versus 13.4% of ST-elevation MI patients (p = 0.001). Despite having more recurrent ischemia (25.7% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.058), non-ST-elevation patients underwent angiography less often (52.6% vs. 64.1%, p = 0.010). The proportion undergoing revascularization was similar (36.8% for non-ST-elevation vs. 41.9% ST-elevation MI, p = 0.277). In-hospital mortality also was similar in the two groups (62.5% for non-ST-elevation vs. 60.4% ST-elevation MI). After adjustment, ST-segment elevation MI did not independently predict in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 2.02; p = 0.252).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CS and non-ST-segment elevation MI have a higher-risk profile than shock patients with ST-segment elevation, but similar in-hospital mortality. More recurrent ischemia and less angiography represent opportunities for earlier intervention, and early reperfusion therapy for circumflex artery occlusion should be considered when non-ST-elevation MI causes CS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10985710     DOI: 10.1016/s0735-1097(00)00888-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  10 in total

Review 1.  Routine invasive versus conservative management in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes.

Authors:  Peter R Sinnaeve
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 4.132

Review 2.  Revascularization Strategies for Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Authors:  Bennet George; Naoki Misumida; Khaled M Ziada
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2019-04-10       Impact factor: 2.931

3.  Predictive value of the baseline electrocardiogram ST-segment pattern in cardiogenic shock: Results from the CardShock Study.

Authors:  Tuija Javanainen; Heli Tolppanen; Johan Lassus; Markku S Nieminen; Alessandro Sionis; Jindrich Spinar; José Silva-Cardoso; Matias Greve Lindholm; Marek Banaszewski; Veli-Pekka Harjola; Raija Jurkko
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 1.468

Review 4.  [Acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock: pathophysiology, clinical aspects and management strategies].

Authors:  S Störk; C E Angermann; G Ertl
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 0.743

5.  Long-term follow-up of diabetic patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Zhifeng Li; Shaopeng Huang; Rui Yang; Jieyuan Li; Guoqiang Chen
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2021-12-15       Impact factor: 4.060

6.  Early Invasive Strategy for Unstable Angina: a New Meta-Analysis of Old Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Olivia Manfrini; Beatrice Ricci; Ada Dormi; Paolo Emilio Puddu; Edina Cenko; Raffaele Bugiardini
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 7.  Predictors of Outcomes in Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Deepak Acharya
Journal:  Cardiol Rev       Date:  2018 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 2.644

8.  Early Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Myocardial Revascularization for Acute Coronary Syndromes Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: A Report From the North-Rhine-Westphalia Surgical Myocardial Infarction Registry.

Authors:  Oliver J Liakopoulos; G Schlachtenberger; Daniel Wendt; Yeong-Hoon Choi; Ingo Slottosch; Henryk Welp; Wolfgang Schiller; Sven Martens; Armin Welz; Markus Neuhäuser; Heinz Jakob; Thorsten Wahlers; Matthias Thielmann
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 5.501

9.  A review of cardiogenic shock in acute myocardial infarction.

Authors:  L Khalid; S H Dhakam
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rev       Date:  2008-02

10.  Risk Stratification and in Hospital Morality in Patients Presenting with Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) in Bahrain.

Authors:  Taysir S Garadah; Khalid Bin Thani; Leena Sulibech; Ahmed A Jaradat; Mohamed E Al Alawi; Haytham Amin
Journal:  Open Cardiovasc Med J       Date:  2018-02-21
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.