Nathaniel R Smilowitz1, Aubrey C Galloway2, E Magnus Ohman3, Sunil V Rao3, Sripal Bangalore4, Stuart D Katz4, Judith S Hochman4. 1. Leon H. Charney Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY; Cardiology Section, Department of Medicine, VA New York Harbor Health Care System, New York, NY. Electronic address: nathaniel.smilowitz@nyulangone.org. 2. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY. 3. The Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 4. Leon H. Charney Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY.
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (MI) is associated with high mortality. In the absence of data to support coronary revascularization beyond the infarct artery and selection of circulatory support devices or medications, clinical practice may vary substantially. METHODS: We distributed a survey to interventional cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons through relevant professional societies to determine contemporary coronary revascularization and circulatory support strategies for MI with CS and multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD). RESULTS: A total of 143 participants completed the survey between 1/2019 and 8/2019. Overall, 55.2% of participants reported that the standard approach to coronary revascularization was single vessel PCI of the infarct related artery (IRA) with staged PCI of non-culprit lesions. Single vessel PCI of the IRA only (28.0%), emergency multi-vessel PCI (11.9%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (4.9%) were standard approaches at some centers. A plurality of survey respondents (46.9%) believed initial PCI with staged CABG for multi-vessel CAD would be associated with the most favorable outcomes. A minority of respondents believed PCI-only strategies (23.1%) and CABG alone (6.3%) provided optimal care, and 23.1% were unsure of the best strategy. After PCI for CS, Impella (76.9%), intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) (12.8%), and extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (7.7%) were preferred. After CABG, IABP (34.3%), Impella (32.2%), and ECMO (28%) were preferred. CONCLUSIONS: This survey indicates substantial heterogeneity in clinical care in CS. There is evidence of provider uncertainty and clinical equipoise regarding the optimal management of patients with MI, multi-vessel CAD, and CS. SHORT ABSTRACT: We sought to determine contemporary practice patterns of coronary revascularization and circulatory support in patients with MI, multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD), and cardiogenic shock. A survey was distributed to interventional cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons through relevant professional societies. Survey respondents identified substantial heterogeneity in clinical care and evidence of provider uncertainty and clinical equipoise regarding the optimal management of patients with MI, multi-vessel CAD, and CS. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (MI) is associated with high mortality. In the absence of data to support coronary revascularization beyond the infarct artery and selection of circulatory support devices or medications, clinical practice may vary substantially. METHODS: We distributed a survey to interventional cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons through relevant professional societies to determine contemporary coronary revascularization and circulatory support strategies for MI with CS and multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD). RESULTS: A total of 143 participants completed the survey between 1/2019 and 8/2019. Overall, 55.2% of participants reported that the standard approach to coronary revascularization was single vessel PCI of the infarct related artery (IRA) with staged PCI of non-culprit lesions. Single vessel PCI of the IRA only (28.0%), emergency multi-vessel PCI (11.9%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (4.9%) were standard approaches at some centers. A plurality of survey respondents (46.9%) believed initial PCI with staged CABG for multi-vessel CAD would be associated with the most favorable outcomes. A minority of respondents believed PCI-only strategies (23.1%) and CABG alone (6.3%) provided optimal care, and 23.1% were unsure of the best strategy. After PCI for CS, Impella (76.9%), intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) (12.8%), and extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (7.7%) were preferred. After CABG, IABP (34.3%), Impella (32.2%), and ECMO (28%) were preferred. CONCLUSIONS: This survey indicates substantial heterogeneity in clinical care in CS. There is evidence of provider uncertainty and clinical equipoise regarding the optimal management of patients with MI, multi-vessel CAD, and CS. SHORT ABSTRACT: We sought to determine contemporary practice patterns of coronary revascularization and circulatory support in patients with MI, multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD), and cardiogenic shock. A survey was distributed to interventional cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons through relevant professional societies. Survey respondents identified substantial heterogeneity in clinical care and evidence of provider uncertainty and clinical equipoise regarding the optimal management of patients with MI, multi-vessel CAD, and CS. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Holger Thiele; Ibrahim Akin; Marcus Sandri; Georg Fuernau; Suzanne de Waha; Roza Meyer-Saraei; Peter Nordbeck; Tobias Geisler; Ulf Landmesser; Carsten Skurk; Andreas Fach; Harald Lapp; Jan J Piek; Marko Noc; Tomaž Goslar; Stephan B Felix; Lars S Maier; Janina Stepinska; Keith Oldroyd; Pranas Serpytis; Gilles Montalescot; Olivier Barthelemy; Kurt Huber; Stephan Windecker; Stefano Savonitto; Patrizia Torremante; Christiaan Vrints; Steffen Schneider; Steffen Desch; Uwe Zeymer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nanna Junker Udesen; Jacob Eifer Møller; Matias Greve Lindholm; Hans Eiskjær; Andreas Schäfer; Nikos Werner; Lene Holmvang; Christian Juhl Terkelsen; Lisette Okkels Jensen; Anders Junker; Henrik Schmidt; Kristian Wachtell; Holger Thiele; Thomas Engstrøm; Christian Hassager Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Dagmar M Ouweneel; Erlend Eriksen; Krischan D Sjauw; Ivo M van Dongen; Alexander Hirsch; Erik J S Packer; M Marije Vis; Joanna J Wykrzykowska; Karel T Koch; Jan Baan; Robbert J de Winter; Jan J Piek; Wim K Lagrand; Bas A J M de Mol; Jan G P Tijssen; José P S Henriques Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Sean van Diepen; Jason N Katz; Nancy M Albert; Timothy D Henry; Alice K Jacobs; Navin K Kapur; Ahmet Kilic; Venu Menon; E Magnus Ohman; Nancy K Sweitzer; Holger Thiele; Jeffrey B Washam; Mauricio G Cohen Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: J S Hochman; L A Sleeper; J G Webb; T A Sanborn; H D White; J D Talley; C E Buller; A K Jacobs; J N Slater; J Col; S M McKinlay; T H LeJemtel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-08-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Siddharth A Wayangankar; Sripal Bangalore; Lisa A McCoy; Hani Jneid; Faisal Latif; Wassef Karrowni; Konstantinos Charitakis; Dmitriy N Feldman; Habib A Dakik; Laura Mauri; Eric D Peterson; John Messenger; Mathew Roe; Debabrata Mukherjee; Andrew Klein Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2016-01-20 Impact factor: 11.195