Literature DB >> 26541908

Trends in Coronary Angiography, Revascularization, and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Dhaval Kolte1, Sahil Khera1, Kaustubh C Dabhadkar2, Shikhar Agarwal3, Wilbert S Aronow1, Robert Timmermans1, Diwakar Jain1, Howard A Cooper1, William H Frishman1, Venu Menon3, Deepak L Bhatt4, J Dawn Abbott2, Gregg C Fonarow5, Julio A Panza6.   

Abstract

Early revascularization is the mainstay of treatment for cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction. However, data on the contemporary trends in management and outcomes of CS complicating non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) are limited. We used the 2006 to 2012 Nationwide Inpatient Sample databases to identify patients aged ≥ 18 years with NSTEMI with or without CS. Temporal trends and differences in coronary angiography, revascularization, and outcomes were analyzed. Of 2,191,772 patients with NSTEMI, 53,800 (2.5%) had a diagnosis of CS. From 2006 to 2012, coronary angiography rates increased from 53.6% to 60.4% in patients with NSTEMI with CS (ptrend <0.001). Among patients who underwent coronary angiography, revascularization rates were significantly higher in patients with CS versus without CS (72.5% vs 62.6%, p <0.001). Patients with NSTEMI with CS had significantly higher risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 10.09, 95% confidence interval 9.88 to 10.32) as compared to those without CS. In patients with CS, an invasive strategy was associated with lower risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.45). Risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and total hospital costs decreased over the study period in patients with and without CS (ptrend <0.001). In conclusion, we observed an increasing trend in coronary angiography and decreasing trend in in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and total hospital costs in patients with NSTEMI with and without CS. Despite these positive trends, overall coronary angiography and revascularization rates remain less than optimal and in-hospital mortality unacceptably high in patients with NSTEMI and CS.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26541908     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.10.006

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


  15 in total

1.  Multidisciplinary Code Shock Team in Cardiogenic Shock: A Canadian Centre Experience.

Authors:  Felicity Lee; Jordan H Hutson; Munir Boodhwani; Bernard McDonald; Derek So; Sophie De Roock; Fraser Rubens; Ellamae Stadnick; Marc Ruel; Michel Le May; Marino Labinaz; Kevin Chien; Habibat A Garuba; Lisa M Mielniczuk; Sharon Chih
Journal:  CJC Open       Date:  2020-03-27

2.  Trends, Outcomes, and Predictors of Revascularization in Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Muhammad Zia Khan; Muhammad Bilal Munir; Muhammad U Khan; Mohammed Osman; Pratik Agrawal; Moinuddin Syed; Yasir Abdul Ghaffar; Anas Alharbi; Safi U Khan; Sudarshan Balla
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2019-11-06       Impact factor: 2.778

3.  Coronary Revascularization in Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Nathan Spence; J Dawn Abbott
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2016-01

Review 4.  Cardiogenic Shock: Recent Developments and Significant Knowledge Gaps.

Authors:  Hiren Patel; Haider Nazeer; Neil Yager; Joshua Schulman-Marcus
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2018-02-24

5.  Epidemiology of cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest complicating non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 18-year US study.

Authors:  Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula; Jacob C Jentzer; Abhiram Prasad; Lindsey R Sangaralingham; Kianoush Kashani; Nilay D Shah; Shannon M Dunlay
Journal:  ESC Heart Fail       Date:  2021-04-09

6.  Trends in the management and outcomes of patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome complicated by cardiogenic shock over the past decade: Real world data from the acute coronary syndrome Israeli survey (ACSIS).

Authors:  Eran Kalmanovich; Alex Blatt; Svetlana Brener; Meital Shlezinger; Nir Shlomo; Zvi Vered; Hanoch Hod; Ilan Goldenberg; Gabby Elbaz-Greener
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-06-27

7.  Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Refractory Cardiogenic Shock Before Left Ventricular Assist Device Surgery.

Authors:  Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula; Shilpkumar Arora; Sopan Lahewala; Varun Kumar; Ghanshyam P S Shantha; Jacob C Jentzer; John M Stulak; Bernard J Gersh; Rajiv Gulati; Charanjit S Rihal; Abhiram Prasad; Abhishek J Deshmukh
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2018-11-20       Impact factor: 5.501

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

Review 9.  Overview of Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VA-ECMO) Support for the Management of Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Adamantios Tsangaris; Tamas Alexy; Rajat Kalra; Marinos Kosmopoulos; Andrea Elliott; Jason A Bartos; Demetris Yannopoulos
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2021-07-07

10.  Revascularization Practices and Outcomes in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Who Presented With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock in the US, 2009-2018.

Authors:  Rohan Khera; Eric A Secemsky; Yongfei Wang; Nihar R Desai; Harlan M Krumholz; Thomas M Maddox; Kendrick A Shunk; Salim S Virani; Deepak L Bhatt; Jeptha Curtis; Robert W Yeh
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 44.409

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.