Literature DB >> 19361592

Early risk stratification of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention.

Ana Garcia-Alvarez1, Dabit Arzamendi, Pablo Loma-Osorio, Ricardo Kiamco, Monica Masotti, Alessandro Sionis, Amadeo Betriu, Josep Brugada, Xavier Bosch.   

Abstract

The mortality rate of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction remains exceedingly high despite early mechanical revascularization. Early risk stratification is of great importance to identify patients who could benefit from ventricular assist devices and urgent heart transplantation (UHT). All consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction admitted from June 2001 to December 2007 were prospectively included. Clinical, hemodynamic, and echocardiographic variables were registered on admission and patients were followed for a median of 297 days. A total of 74 patients were included. One-year mortality was 55% and 7 patients (9%) underwent UHT. One-year mortality or need for UHT for patients with postprocedural Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) grade 3, 2, and 0 or 1 flows were 38%, 92%, and 90%, respectively (p <0.001). After adjustment by multivariate analysis, the most important predictors of mortality or need for UHT were age >75 years (hazard ratio [HR] 3.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07 to 11.80), left main coronary artery occlusion (HR 3.75, 95% CI 1.09 to 12.84), left ventricular ejection fraction <25% (HR 2.70, 95% CI 1.17 to 6.22), and postprocedural TIMI grade <3 flow (HR 3.37, 95% CI 1.48 to 7.72). A simple risk score constructed with these 4 variables effectively predicted 1-year survival without the need for UHT (83% for score 0, 19% for score 1, and 6% for score 2, p <0.001). In conclusion, age >75 years, left main coronary artery occlusion, left ventricular ejection fraction <25%, and postprocedural TIMI grade <3 flow were significantly associated with worse prognosis. A simple risk score rapidly available in the catheterization laboratory can efficiently estimate prognosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19361592     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.12.033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  9 in total

Review 1.  Cardiogenic shock in ACS. Part 1: prediction, presentation and medical therapy.

Authors:  Stephen Westaby; Rajesh Kharbanda; Adrian P Banning
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2011-12-20       Impact factor: 32.419

Review 2.  Cardiogenic shock in ACS. Part 2: Role of mechanical circulatory support.

Authors:  Stephen Westaby; Kyriakos Anastasiadis; George M Wieselthaler
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 32.419

Review 3.  Laboratory Predictors of Prognosis in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Authors:  Tamilla Muzafarova; Zuzana Motovska
Journal:  Biomedicines       Date:  2022-06-05

4.  In-Hospital Outcome of Patients with Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction: Results from Royal Hospital Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Registry, Oman.

Authors:  Mohammad S Islam; Prashanth Panduranga; Mohammed Al-Mukhaini; Abdullah Al-Riyami; Mohammad El-Deeb; Said Abdul Rahman; Mohammed B Al-Riyami
Journal:  Oman Med J       Date:  2016-01

Review 5.  Predictors of Outcomes in Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock.

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

6.  Cardiogenic shock after ST elevation myocardial infarction and IABP-SHOCK II risk score validation in a cohort treated with pharmacoinvasive strategy.

Authors:  Pedro Ivo M Moraes; Claudia Rodrigues Alves; Marco Tulio Souza; Suzi Emiko Kawakami; Iran Goncalves; Adriano Henrique Pereira Barbosa; Antonio Celio Moreno; Adriano Mendes Caixeta; Antonio Carlos Carvalho
Journal:  Open Heart       Date:  2019-07-29

7.  Cardiogenic shock due to left main related myocardial infarction: is revascularization enough?

Authors:  Francisco Galván-Román; Elena Puerto; Roberto Martín-Asenjo; Albert Ariza-Solé
Journal:  J Geriatr Cardiol       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 3.327

8.  Predicting mortality in cardiogenic shock secondary to ACS requiring short-term mechanical circulatory support: The ACS-MCS score.

Authors:  Qussay Marashly; Iosif Taleb; Christos P Kyriakopoulos; Elizabeth Dranow; Tara L Jones; Anwar Tandar; Sean D Overton; Joseph E Tonna; Kathleen Stoddard; Omar Wever-Pinzon; Line Kemeyou; Antigone G Koliopoulou; Kevin S Shah; Kimiya Nourian; Tyler J Richins; Tyson S Burnham; Frederick G Welt; Stephen H McKellar; Jose Nativi-Nicolau; Stavros G Drakos
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2021-03-07       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 9.  A Review of Prognosis Model Associated With Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Authors:  Jingyue Wang; Botao Shen; Xiaoxing Feng; Zhiyu Zhang; Junqian Liu; Yushi Wang
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2021-12-10
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.