Literature DB >> 24221834

Differences in the profile, treatment, and prognosis of patients with cardiogenic shock by myocardial infarction classification: A report from NCDR.

Monique L Anderson1, Eric D Peterson, S Andrew Peng, Tracy Y Wang, E Magnus Ohman, Deepak L Bhatt, Jorge F Saucedo, Matthew T Roe.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock is a deadly complication of an acute myocardial infarction (MI). We sought to characterize differences in patient features, treatments, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock by MI classification: ST-segment-elevation MI (STEMI) versus non-ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI). METHODS AND
RESULTS: We compared differences in care by the shock status of 235 541 patients with STEMI and NSTEMI treated at 392 US hospitals from 2007 to 2011. Cardiogenic shock occurred in 12.2% of patients with STEMI versus 4.3% of patients with NSTEMI. Compared with STEMI shock, NSTEMI shock was more likely in patients who were older and predominantly women; had diabetes mellitus, hypertension, previous heart failure, MI, or peripheral arterial disease; and who received coronary artery bypass grafting (11.6% versus 21.2%; P<0.0001) but less likely to have received percutaneous coronary intervention (84.2% versus 35.3%; P<0.0001). Compared with patients with STEMI presenting with shock at admission, patients with NSTEMI presenting with shock had longer delays to percutaneous coronary intervention (1.2 versus 3.2 hours) and coronary artery bypass grafting (7.9 versus 55.9 hours). Cardiogenic shock in patients with STEMI was associated with a lower mortality risk (33.1% shock versus 2.0% no shock; adjusted odds ratio, 14.1; 95% confidence interval, 13.0-15.4; interaction P value <0.0001) compared with patients with NSTEMI (40.8% shock versus 2.3% no shock, odds ratio, 19.0; 95% confidence interval, 17.1-21.2).
CONCLUSIONS: Cardiogenic shock is associated with high mortality in patients with STEMI and NSTEMI. However, urgent revascularization is more commonly pursued in patients with STEMI presenting with shock than in patients with NSTEMI. More research is needed to improve the outcomes for patients with MI presenting with shock, particularly those presenting with NSTEMI.

Entities:  

Keywords:  myocardial infarction; outcome assessment; shock, cardiogenic

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24221834     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000262

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes        ISSN: 1941-7713


  26 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Ventricular Assist Device in Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Authors:  Deepak Acharya; Renzo Y Loyaga-Rendon; Salpy V Pamboukian; José A Tallaj; William L Holman; Ryan S Cantor; David C Naftel; James K Kirklin
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 24.094

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

4.  Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Older Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Abdulla A Damluji; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Carol Berkower; Cynthia M Boyd; Mohammed S Al-Damluji; Mauricio G Cohen; Daniel E Forman; Rahul Chaudhary; Gary Gerstenblith; Jeremy D Walston; Jon R Resar; Mauro Moscucci
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2019-04-23       Impact factor: 24.094

5.  Effect of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease on In-Hospital Mortality and Clinical Outcomes After ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Authors:  Manyoo Agarwal; Sahil Agrawal; Lohit Garg; Aakash Garg; Nirmanmoh Bhatia; Dipen Kadaria; Guy Reed
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 2.778

Review 6.  Cardiogenic Shock in the Setting of Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Authors:  Navin K Kapur; Katherine L Thayer; Elric Zweck
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2020 Jan-Mar

7.  Shensong Yangxin (SSYX) ameliorates disordered excitation transmission by suppressing cardiac collagen hyperplasia in rabbits with chronic myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Song Dang; Cong-Xin Huang; Xi Wang; Xin Wang; Juan Hu; He Huang
Journal:  J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci       Date:  2016-04-13

Review 8.  Contemporary device management of cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Tariq Suleiman; Alexander Scott; David Tong; Vikram Khanna; Vijay Kunadian
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2021-03-03       Impact factor: 4.214

9.  Sonothrombolysis in the ambulance for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: rationale and protocol.

Authors:  S El Kadi; T R Porter; A C van Rossum; O Kamp
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2020-11-12       Impact factor: 2.380

Review 10.  Mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: Challenges and importance of randomized control trials.

Authors:  Mir B Basir; Duane S Pinto; Boback Ziaeian; Akshay Khandelwal; Jennifer Cowger; William Suh; Andrew Althouse
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2021-03-07       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.