Literature DB >> 28251160

Prognostic Analysis for Cardiogenic Shock in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Receiving Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Mao-Jen Lin1, Chun-Yu Chen2, Hau-De Lin3, Han-Ping Wu4.   

Abstract

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is uncommon in patients suffering from acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Long-term outcome and adverse predictors for outcomes in AMI patients with CS receiving percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) are unclear. A total of 482 AMI patients who received PCI were collected, including 53 CS and 429 non-CS. Predictors for AMI patients with CS including recurrent MI, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, all-cause mortality, and repeated-PCI were analyzed. The CS group had a lower central systolic pressure and central diastolic pressure (both P < 0.001). AMI patients with hypertension history were less prone to develop CS (P < 0.001). Calcium channel blockers and statins were less frequently used by the CS group than the non-CS group (both P < 0.05) after discharge. Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score, CV mortality, and all-cause mortality were higher in the CS group than the non-CS group (all P < 0.005). For patients with CS, stroke history was a predictor of recurrent MI (P = 0.036). CS, age, SYNTAX score, and diabetes were predictors of CV mortality (all P < 0.05). CS, age, SYNTAX score, and stroke history were predictors for all-cause mortality (all P < 0.05). CS, age, and current smoking were predictors for repeated-PCI (all P < 0.05).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28251160      PMCID: PMC5303841          DOI: 10.1155/2017/8530539

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biomed Res Int            Impact factor:   3.411


1. Introduction

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is uncommon in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, an AMI complicated by CS is a complex syndrome which may induce low cardiac output and hypotension resulting in multiorgan dysfunction and mortality. Even with the introduction of modern intensive care units (ICUs), advanced medical treatment, and invasive devices, the short-term mortality and morbidity of AMI complicated by CS remain high [1-4]. The mortality rate for AMI complicated by CS after early revascularization, including percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), is approximately 40% to 60%. In addition, as for age and gender, patients with AMI complicated by CS who are older than 75 years of age may have a higher one-year mortality than their younger counterparts [5, 6]. In addition, compared with men, women suffering from STEMI more often have concurrent CS, according to some studies [7]. In terms of an invasive strategy for CS, there was no difference in 30-day survival rate between PCI and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) group [8]. On the other hand, the outcome data comparing multivessel with culprit lesion PCI is controversial. Thus, the best revascularization strategy for CS patients remains obscure [9-12]. Long-term prognosis of patients with AMI complicated by CS is still unclear and analysis of predictors for adverse clinical outcomes has not been well studied. Therefore, this study aimed to survey the clinical features and outcomes of patients with AMI complicated by CS compared to those without CS. Moreover, the risk factors for recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular (CV) mortality, all-cause mortality, and repeated-PCI in patients with AMI complicated by CS were analyzed.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Population

A retrospective survey of a prospective database was conducted via medical record review over a period from 2007 through 2014. AMI patients between 20 and 90 years of age were consecutively recruited from the inpatient clinic at Taichung Tzu Chi Hospital, Taiwan. They were divided into two groups: patients with AMI complicated by CS (the CS group) and AMI patients without CS (non-CS group). Patients suffering from out of hospital death (OHCA) and patients with malignancy were excluded from the analysis. All patients were followed up regularly via the outpatient department (OPD). A survey focusing on MI, repeated-PCI, CV mortality, and all-cause mortality was completed for each patient at the end of the study.

2.2. Definition, Data Collection, and Measurement

CS was defined as systemic blood pressure (BP) less than 80/50 mmHg or less than 90/60 mmHg after vasopressor therapy during admission to the emergency department. Diabetes was defined as a fasting plasma glucose level of more than 126 mg/dL, a casual plasma glucose level greater than 200 mg/dL, or a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of more than 6.5%. Hypercholesterolemia was defined as a serum cholesterol level of more than 200 mg/dL or an LDL-C level of more than 100 mg/dL. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, which was equal to or more than stage III chronic kidney disease (CKD). Previous MI history was defined as a history of MI prior to admission, accompanied by a threefold elevation of cardiac enzymes from the baseline value. Measurements of body parameters included body height, body weight, and body mass index (BMI). Baseline biochemical data collected on admission included fasting plasma glucose, serum creatinine, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), and serum triglyceride level. As for the hemodynamic data, central aorta systolic pressure and central aorta diastolic pressure during cardiac catheterization were also collected. The central aortic pressure (CAP) was measured via a pigtail catheter while performing a coronary angiography. The angiographic findings included number and distribution of diseased vessels, number of treated vessels, and number of lesions. Left ventricular systolic function was usually calculated via two-dimensional echocardiography. Lesion severity and complexity were evaluated using the Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score. Related clinical parameters including baseline characteristics, related risk factors, hemodynamic data, angiographic findings, and treatment strategies such as drug medications after discharge or invasive procedures (balloon angioplasty, bare-metal stent deployment, or drug-eluting stent deployment) were compared between patients with CS and those without CS. In addition, this study attempted to identify the significant predictor of AMI patients developing cardiogenic shock and to analyze the adverse predictors of recurrent MI, CV mortality, all-cause mortality, and repeated-PCI procedures in patients with CS.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The patients were divided into two groups: patients with AMI complicated by CS (the CS group) and AMI patients without CS (non-CS group). The independent t-test, chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to compare the differences between the two groups. The log rank test and Kaplan-Meier curves were used for the survival analysis. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to test the effects of independent variables on hazards. P values less than 0.05 were considered significant. All analyses were performed using the statistical package SPSS for Windows (Version 23.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

3. Results

A total of 482 patients who suffered from AMI were collected during the study period. Among them, there were 53 patients with AMI complicated by CS on admission, while 429 patients had no CS during admission. The mean age in the CS group compared with the non-CS group was 62.5 ± 12.1 years versus 63.6 ± 13.1 years, respectively (P = 0.573). The mean follow-up period was 94.4 ± 97.9 weeks for the CS group and 152.2 ± 108.4 weeks for the non-CS group. Baseline clinical characteristics are shown in Table 1. Concerning the hemodynamic parameters, after inotropic agents and intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP) usage, the CS group had a lower central systolic pressure (CSP) (110.8 ± 26.7 versus 132.4 ± 23.6 mmHg, P < 0.001) and a lower central diastolic pressure (CDP) (63.1 ± 17.6 versus 72.2 ± 13.2 mmHg, P < 0.001) compared with the non-CS group. As for the baseline biochemistry, there was no significant difference between the two groups.
Table 1

General characteristics of the study population.

CharacteristicsShockWithout shock P value
Patient number N = 53 N = 429
Age (years)a62.5 ± 12.163.6 ± 13.10.573
Height (cm)1.6 ± 0.11.6 ± 0.10.685
Weight (kg)67.3 ± 14.966.8 ± 13.20.822
BMI (kg/m2)25.1 ± 4.525.1 ± 3.90.986
CSP (mmHg)110.8 ± 26.7132.4 ± 23.6<0.001
CDP (mmHg)63.1 ± 17.672.2 ± 13.2<0.001
Glucose (mg/dL)169.8 ± 94.6149.9 ± 76.70.084
Cholesterol (mg/dL)169.9 ± 55.8179.2 ± 45.10.168
HDL (mg/dL)39.6 ± 19.639.5 ± 15.90.946
LDL (mg/dL)103.6 ± 43.4111.7 ± 38.80.158
TG (mg/dL)133.3 ± 94.1140.3 ± 83.60.569
Serum creatinine (mg/dL)1.7 ± 1.41.8 ± 2.20.793

BMI: body mass index; CSP: central aortic systolic pressure; CDP: central aortic diastolic pressure; HDL: high-density lipoprotein; LDL: low-density lipoprotein; TG: triglyceride. Significant.

aMean standard deviation.

The demographic data of the study population are shown in Table 2. ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) was more prevalent in the CS group compared with the non-CS group, and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction was less prevalent in the CS group than in the non-CS group (P = 0.001). On the other hand, a history of hypertension was less prevalent in the CS group compared with the non-CS group (P < 0.001). In addition, patients in the CS group used P2Y12 receptor inhibitor of platelet (P2Y12 inhibitors) more frequently than those in the non-CS group (P = 0.04). By contrast, CCB and statins were less frequently used by the CS group compared with the non-CS group (P = 0.012 and P = 0.04, resp.).
Table 2

Demography of study population and medications during admission in patients with and without shock.

CharacteristicsShock (%)Without shock (%) P value
Gender0.996
 Male41 (77.4)332 (77.4)
 Female12 (22.6)97 (22.6)
STEMI0.001
 Yes36 (67.9)184 (42.9)
 No17 (32.1)245 (57.1)
Diabetes0.597
 Yes23 (43.4)170 (39.6)
 No30 (56.6)259 (60.4)
Hypertension<0.001
 Yes13 (24.5)225 (52.4)
 No40 (75.5)204 (47.6)
CKD0.662
 Yes28 (52.8)213 (49.7)
 No25 (47.2)216 (50.3)
Hypercholesterolemia0.125
 Yes22 (41.5)226 (52.7)
 No31 (58.5)203 (47.3)
Current smoker0.981
 Yes23 (43.4)185 (43.2)
 No30 (56.6)243 (56.8)
Stroke history0.673
 Yes4 (7.5)26 (6.1)
 No49 (92.5)403 (93.9)
CABG history0.369
 Yes1 (1.9)3 (0.7)
 No52 (98.1)426 (99.3)
Aspirin0.559
 Yes50 (94.3)395 (92.1)
 No3 (5.7)34 (7.9)
P2Y12 inhibitors0.040
 Yes53 (100)397 (92.5)
 No032 (7.5)
Diuretics0.226
 Yes10 (18.9)114 (26.6)
 No43 (81.1)315 (73.4)
Beta-blockers0.549
 Yes24 (45.3)213 (49.7)
 No29 (54.7)216 (50.3)
CCB0.012
 Yes3 (5.7)85 (19.8)
 No50 (94.3)344 (80.2)
ACEI0.247
 Yes15 (28.3)156 (36.4)
 No38 (71.7)273 (63.6)
ARB0.090
 Yes5 (9.4)81 (18.9)
 No48 (90.6)348 (81.1)
Statins0.040
 Yes14 (26.4)176 (41.0)
 No39 (73.6)253 (59.0)
Fibrate0.845
 Yes2 (3.8)14 (3.3)
 No51 (96.2)415 (96.7)

Previous MI: history of previous myocardial infarction; CABG history: history of coronary artery bypass graft; CKD: chronic kidney disease; P2Y12 inhibitor: P2Y12 receptor inhibitor of platelet; CCB: calcium channel blocker; ACEI: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB: angiotensin receptor blocker. Significant.

The angiographic findings and clinical outcomes are shown in Table 3. The distributions of diseased vessels in the CS group compared with the non-CS group were single vessel disease, 34.0% versus 39.2%; dual vessel disease, 30.2% versus 35.2%; and triple vessel disease, 35.8% versus 25.6% (P = 0.285). The SYNTAX score was higher in the CS group than in the non-CS group (17.3 ± 10.4 versus 13.1 ± 8.0, P < 0.001).
Table 3

Demography of angiographic findings and clinical outcome.

CharacteristicsShock (%)Without shock (%) P value
Follow-up time (weeks)a94.4 ± 97.9152.2 ± 108.4<0.001
Number of diseased vessel0.285
 Single vessel disease18 (34.0)168 (39.2)
 Dual vessel disease16 (30.2)151 (35.2)
 Triple vessel disease19 (35.8)110 (25.6)
Mean of treated vessels1.2 ± 0.51.2 ± 0.50.612
Mean of treated lesions1.5 ± 0.71.5 ± 0.80.805
Lesion location
 LAD42 (79.2)335 (78.1)0.847
 LCX31 (58.5)237 (55.2)0.654
 RCA35 (66.0)232 (54.1)0.098
SYNTAX score17.3 ± 10.413.1 ± 8.0<0.001
LVEF0.5 ± 0.10.5 ± 0.10.387
Type of intervention
 Balloon angioplasty12 (22.6)128 (29.8)0.276
 BMS deployment28 (52.8)200 (46.6)0.393
 DES deployment16 (30.2)155 (36.1)0.394
RMI0.657
 Yes5 (9.4)33 (7.7)
 No48 (90.6)396 (92.3)
CV death<0.001
 Yes18 (34.0)43 (10.0)
 No35 (66.0)386 (90.0)
All-cause death<0.001
 Yes21 (39.6)74 (17.2)
 No32 (60.4)355 (82.8)
Re-PCI0.501
 Yes16 (30.2)111 (25.9)
 No37 (69.8)318 (74.1)

LAD: left anterior descending artery; Lcx: left circumflex artery; RCA: right coronary artery; SYNTAX score: Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; BMS: bare-metal stent; DES: drug-eluting stent; RMI: recurrent myocardial infarction; CV death: cardiovascular death; Re-PCI: repeated percutaneous coronary intervention. aMedian (maximum-minimum).

Figure 1 shows the cumulative rate of freedom from recurrent MI, CV mortality, all-cause mortality, and repeated-PCI between the two groups. Freedom from CV mortality, all-cause mortality, and repeated-PCI was lower in the CS group compared with the non-CS group (all P < 0.001, resp.), but there was no significant difference between the two groups for recurrent MI (P = 0.305).
Figure 1

(a) Cumulative rate of myocardial infarction between the two groups (P = 0.305). (b) Cumulative rate of cardiovascular mortality between the two groups (P < 0.001). (c) Cumulative rate of all-cause mortality between the two groups (P < 0.001). (d) Cumulative rate of repeated-PCI between the two groups (P = 0.001).

Medical factors predicting AMI complicated by CS are shown in Table 4. Based on the results of multivariate logistic regression analysis, SYNTAX score was the only predictor of AMI complicated by CS (P = 0.002). Furthermore, adverse predictors associated with clinical outcome in patients with AMI complicated by CS are listed in Table 5. For the CS group, history of stroke was a predictor of recurrent MI (P = 0.036), and CS, age, SYNTAX score, and diabetes were associated with CV mortality (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P = 0.008, and P = 0.047, resp.). On the other hand, use of beta-blockers (BBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEIs) could reduce CV mortality. Moreover, CS, age, SYNTAX score, and history of stroke were associated with all-cause mortality (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P = 0.002, and P = 0.003, resp.), whereas use of BBs and statins could reduce all-cause mortality. For repeated-PCI, CS, age, and current smoking were related risk factors (P < 0.001, P = 0.018, and P = 0.027, resp.), whereas usage of ACEIs could reduce the rate of repeated-PCI.
Table 4

Significant predictors of CS for AMI patients in stepwise multiple logistic regression.

VariableAdjusted OR95% CI P value
Age0.990.96–1.010.373
Male1.100.49–2.440.825
SYNTAX score1.051.02–1.090.002
Smoke0.840.42–1.670.615
Comorbidity
 STEMI2.050.06–70.760.691
 Non-STEMI0.690.02–23.970.838
 Dyslipidemia0.770.40–1.510.447
 Stroke1.070.33–3.420.914
 Diabetes mellitus1.040.55–1.950.906
Medications
 Aspirin1.480.41–5.410.549
 Diuretics0.690.31–1.540.366
 BB0.880.47–1.630.681
 ACEI0.550.27–1.120.098
 Statin0.490.23–1.020.056

Clinical factor used in analysis included sex, baseline biochemical data, angiographic findings on cardiac catheterization, exposed risk factors, and medications during admission. STEMI: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; Non-STEMI: non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; BB: beta-blockers; ACEI: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Significant.

Table 5

Cox proportional hazard ratio of recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and repeated-PCI in AMI patients with cardiogenic shock after index PCI.

VariableRecurrent MICV mortalityAll-cause mortalityRepeat-PCI
Adjusted HR P valueAdjusted HR P valueAdjusted HR P valueAdjusted HR P value
With CS1.570.4424.51<0.0013.66<0.0012.93<0.001
Age1.030.0941.06<0.0011.06<0.0011.020.018
Male1.420.4240.740.3321.030.9041.080.798
SYNTAX score1.030.1631.030.0081.030.0020.980.078
Comorbidity
 STEMI2.530.8702.850.3083.160.2515.020.740
 Non-STEMI5.780.7583.280.2584.720.1286.200.707
 DM1.890.0871.760.0471.460.0881.540.043
 Dyslipidemia0.910.8170.910.7370.980.9310.870.540
 Smoke0.630.2731.130.7240.800.4031.670.027
 Stroke3.190.0362.040.0752.530.0031.090.873
Medications
 Aspirin0.860.8141.420.4630.600.0681.980.191
 P2Y12 inhibitors0.840.7782.030.3360.900.7901.510.384
 Diuretics1.330.4661.090.7931.020.9371.270.355
 BB0.830.6100.420.0050.500.0041.020.938
 ACEI1.060.8890.480.0320.640.0780.41<0.001
 Statin0.670.3790.570.1290.500.0230.930.784

Recurrent MI: recurrent myocardial infarction; CV mortality: cardiovascular mortality; CS: cardiogenic shock; SYNTAX score: Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score; DM: diabetes mellitus; STEMI: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; Non-STEMI: non- ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; P2Y12 inhibitors: P2Y12 receptor inhibitor of platelet; BB: beta-blockers; ACEI: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors Significant.

4. Discussion

AMI complicated by CS is one of the leading causes of death in patients hospitalized with AMI. Despite relevant progress even after invasive strategy, prognosis in this population remains poor and risk of future cardiac events is high. In this study, long-term CV mortality, all-cause mortality, and rate of repeated-PCI were higher in the CS group compared with the non-CS group. However, there was no difference between groups regarding recurrent MI. In addition, we found that SYNTAX score was an important risk factor for patients with AMI complicated by CS. In our study, we also found that both CSP and CDP were lower in the CS group compared with the non-CS group in spite of use of inotropic agents or/and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). This finding was compatible with the reduced use of potent hypotensive agents such as CCB and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) in the CS group. Moreover, we found that hypertension was more prevalent in the non-CS group compared with the CS group. The role of hypertension in AMI patients developing CS remains controversial. In a large observational study, the presence of hypertension in AMI patients may protect against developing CS [13], but, according to Menon and colleagues in the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and t-PA for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) III Trial, hypertension was a predictor for developing CS in AMI patients [14]. There was no difference in terms of number or distribution of disease vessels from angiographic findings, but the left anterior descending artery (LAD) was the most common location of lesions in patients with AMI complicated by CS. As has been reported, STEMI occurred more frequently in the CS group, but our CS group had higher SYNTAX scores than our non-CS group, which indicated that they had more complex and more severe lesion anatomy. Simple infarct-related artery (IRA) intervention in the CS group due to STEMI may have led to inadequate revascularization in these cases which could have affected long-term mortality and repeat-PCI rate. Immediate multivessel revascularization may be helpful in patients with CS due to STEMI [9] but whether this applies to all patients with AMI complicated by CS is still controversial [10]. The 30-day predictors for clinical outcomes of CS such as CS itself, DM, hypertension, previous MI, and old age have been previously studied [15]. From the results of logistic regression analysis, SYNTAX score was the only factor strongly related to developing CS in the AMI patients in our study. On the other hand, based on the results of our Cox proportional hazards model, CS, age, and SYNTAX score were risk factors associated with both long-term CV mortality and all-cause mortality. In patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), SYNTAX score was a significant predictor of both short-term and long-term outcomes. For STEMI patients receiving primary PCI, SYNTAX score was an independent predictor of short-term [16, 17] and long-term cardiac mortality [18, 19]. For NSTEMI patients receiving primary PCI, SYNTAX score was also an independent predictor of 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, cardiac death, MI, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) [20]. Clinically, SYNTAX score should be carefully evaluated during the index catheterization. AMI patients with high SYNTAX score deserve more attention, and more aggressive revascularization should be considered in these patients.

5. Conclusion

Patients with AMI complicated by CS may have higher long-term mortality rates and higher repeated-PCI rates than those without CS, but we found no significant difference in the occurrence of recurrent MI between the two groups. SYNTAX Score strongly correlated with development of CS in AMI patients during initial admission and may also predict long-term mortality in AMI patients with CS.
  20 in total

1.  Predictors of outcome after percutaneous treatment for cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  A G C Sutton; P Finn; J A Hall; A A Harcombe; R A Wright; M A de Belder
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 5.994

2.  Value of the SYNTAX score in patients treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: The MI SYNTAXscore study.

Authors:  Michael Magro; Sjoerd Nauta; Cihan Simsek; Yoshinobu Onuma; Scot Garg; Elco van der Heide; Willem J van der Giessen; Eric Boersma; Ron T van Domburg; Robert Jan van Geuns; Patrick W Serruys
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.749

3.  Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting after acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial.

Authors:  Harvey D White; Susan F Assmann; Timothy A Sanborn; Alice K Jacobs; John G Webb; Lynn A Sleeper; Cheuk-Kit Wong; James T Stewart; Philip E G Aylward; Shing-Chiu Wong; Judith S Hochman
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2005-09-27       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  One-year clinical outcome of elderly patients undergoing angioplasty for ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the importance of 3-vessel disease and final TIMI-3 flow grade.

Authors:  Francesco De Felice; Elena Guerra; Rosario Fiorilli; Antonio Parma; Carmine Musto; Marco Stefano Nazzaro; Roberto Violini
Journal:  J Invasive Cardiol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.022

5.  Multivessel versus culprit lesion only percutaneous revascularization plus potential staged revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Design and rationale of CULPRIT-SHOCK trial.

Authors:  Holger Thiele; Steffen Desch; Jan J Piek; Janina Stepinska; Keith Oldroyd; Pranas Serpytis; Gilles Montalescot; Marko Noc; Kurt Huber; Georg Fuernau; Suzanne de Waha; Roza Meyer-Saraei; Steffen Schneider; Stephan Windecker; Stefano Savonitto; Andrew Briggs; Patrizia Torremante; Christiaan Vrints; Gerhard Schuler; Uta Ceglarek; Joachim Thiery; Uwe Zeymer
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 4.749

6.  High SYNTAX score predicts worse in-hospital clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Seref Kul; Ozgur Akgul; Huseyin Uyarel; Mehmet Ergelen; Okkes T Kucukdagli; Abdurrahman Tasal; Ercan Erdogan; Ahmet Bacaksiz; Osman Sonmez; Mehmet Gul; Nevzat Uslu; Omer Goktekin
Journal:  Coron Artery Dis       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 1.439

7.  Lack of progress in cardiogenic shock: lessons from the GUSTO trials.

Authors:  V Menon; J S Hochman; A Stebbins; M Pfisterer; J Col; R D Anderson; D Hasdai; D R Holmes; E R Bates; E J Topol; R M Califf; E M Ohman
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 29.983

8.  Long-term outcome and its predictors among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by shock: insights from the GUSTO-I trial.

Authors:  Mandeep Singh; Jennifer White; David Hasdai; Patricia K Hodgson; Peter B Berger; Eric J Topol; Robert M Califf; David R Holmes
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 24.094

9.  Improved outcome of cardiogenic shock at the acute stage of myocardial infarction: a report from the USIK 1995, USIC 2000, and FAST-MI French nationwide registries.

Authors:  Nadia Aissaoui; Etienne Puymirat; Xavier Tabone; Bernard Charbonnier; Francois Schiele; Thierry Lefèvre; Eric Durand; Didier Blanchard; Tabassome Simon; Jean-Pierre Cambou; Nicolas Danchin
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2012-08-26       Impact factor: 29.983

10.  Cardiogenic shock in acute coronary syndrome in the Spanish population.

Authors:  Manuel Ruiz Bailén; Luis Rucabado-Aguilar; Ana María Castillo-Rivera; Manuela Expósito-Ruiz; Antonia Morante-Valle; Juan José Rodríguez-García; Antonio Pintor-Mármol; Silvia Galindo-Rodríguez; María Isabel Ruiz-García; Francisco Javier Gómez Jiménez; Juan Carlos Fernández-Guerrero; Rafael Vázquez-García; Juan Angel Herrador Fuentes
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2008-11
View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Predictors of Outcomes in Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock.

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

2.  Clinical characteristics and outcome in patients with a delayed presentation after ST-elevation myocardial infarction and complicated by cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  Yash Paul Sharma; Darshan Krishnappa; Kewal Kanabar; Ganesh Kasinadhuni; Rakesh Sharma; Kamal Kishore; Saurabh Mehrotra; Krishna Santosh; Ankur Gupta; Prashant Panda
Journal:  Indian Heart J       Date:  2019-11-21

Review 3.  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
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.