Literature DB >> 32833024

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.

Rohan Khera1,2, Eric A Secemsky3,4, Yongfei Wang1,2, Nihar R Desai1,2, Harlan M Krumholz1,2, Thomas M Maddox5,6, Kendrick A Shunk7, Salim S Virani8, Deepak L Bhatt4,9, Jeptha Curtis1,2, Robert W Yeh3,4.   

Abstract

Importance: Cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is associated with high mortality, particularly among patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Recent evidence suggests that use of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may be associated with harm. However, little is known about recent patterns of care and outcomes for this patient population. Objective: To evaluate patterns in the use of multivessel PCI vs culprit-vessel PCI in AMI and cardiogenic shock and outcomes in the US from 2009 to 2018. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study identified all patients in the CathPCI Registry) with AMI and cardiogenic shock who had multivessel coronary artery disease and underwent PCI between July 1, 2009, and March 31, 2018. Exposures: Multivessel or culprit-vessel PCI for AMI and shock. Primary Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Temporal trends and hospital variation in PCI strategies were evaluated, while accounting for differences in case mix using hierarchical models. As a secondary outcome, the association of PCI strategy with postdischarge outcomes was evaluated in the subset of patients who were Medicare beneficiaries.
Results: Of 64 301 patients (mean [SD] age, 66.4 [12.5] years; 20 366 [31.7%] female; 54 538 [84.8%] White) with AMI and shock at 1649 US hospitals, 34.9% had primary multivessel PCI. In the subgroup of 48 943 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 31.5% underwent multivessel PCI. Between 2009 and 2018, this percentage increased by 6.7% per year for AMI and 5.8% for STEMI. Overall, multivessel PCI was associated with a greater adjusted risk of in-hospital complications (odds ratio [OR], 1.18; 95% CI, 1.14-1.23) and with greater in-hospital mortality in patients with STEMI (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.16). Among Medicare beneficiaries, multivessel PCI use was not associated with postdischarge 1-year mortality (51.5% vs 49.8%; risk-adjusted OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.04; P = .37). Significant hospital variation was found in the use of multivessel PCI, with a higher multivessel PCI rate for similar patients across hospitals (median OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.33-1.41). Patients at hospitals with high rates of PCI in STEMI use had higher risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (highest vs lowest hospital multivessel PCI quartile: OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.19). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that multivessel PCI was increasingly used as the revascularization strategy in AMI and shock and that hospitals that used multivessel PCI more, especially among patients with STEMI, had worse outcomes. With recent evidence suggesting harm with this strategy, there appears to be an urgent need to change practice and improve outcomes in this high-risk population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32833024      PMCID: PMC9377424          DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3276

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   44.409


  29 in total

1.  2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  Patrick T O'Gara; Frederick G Kushner; Deborah D Ascheim; Donald E Casey; Mina K Chung; James A de Lemos; Steven M Ettinger; James C Fang; Francis M Fesmire; Barry A Franklin; Christopher B Granger; Harlan M Krumholz; Jane A Linderbaum; David A Morrow; L Kristin Newby; Joseph P Ornato; Narith Ou; Martha J Radford; Jacqueline E Tamis-Holland; Carl L Tommaso; Cynthia M Tracy; Y Joseph Woo; David X Zhao
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2012-12-17       Impact factor: 24.094

2.  Contemporary mortality risk prediction for percutaneous coronary intervention: results from 588,398 procedures in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry.

Authors:  Eric D Peterson; David Dai; Elizabeth R DeLong; J Matthew Brennan; Mandeep Singh; Sunil V Rao; Richard E Shaw; Matthew T Roe; Kalon K L Ho; Lloyd W Klein; Ronald J Krone; William S Weintraub; Ralph G Brindis; John S Rumsfeld; John A Spertus
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2010-05-04       Impact factor: 24.094

3.  A More COMPLETE Picture of Revascularization in STEMI.

Authors:  Lars Køber; Thomas Engstrøm
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction.

Authors:  Shamir R Mehta; David A Wood; Robert F Storey; Roxana Mehran; Kevin R Bainey; Helen Nguyen; Brandi Meeks; Giuseppe Di Pasquale; Jose López-Sendón; David P Faxon; Laura Mauri; Sunil V Rao; Laurent Feldman; P Gabriel Steg; Álvaro Avezum; Tej Sheth; Natalia Pinilla-Echeverri; Raul Moreno; Gianluca Campo; Benjamin Wrigley; Sasko Kedev; Andrew Sutton; Richard Oliver; Josep Rodés-Cabau; Goran Stanković; Robert Welsh; Shahar Lavi; Warren J Cantor; Jia Wang; Juliet Nakamya; Shrikant I Bangdiwala; John A Cairns
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  The Evolving Landscape of Impella Use in the United States Among Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Mechanical Circulatory Support.

Authors:  Amit P Amin; John A Spertus; Jeptha P Curtis; Nihar Desai; Frederick A Masoudi; Richard G Bach; Christian McNeely; Firas Al-Badarin; John A House; Hemant Kulkarni; Sunil V Rao
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2019-11-17       Impact factor: 29.690

6.  Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock.

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

7.  Enhanced mortality risk prediction with a focus on high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: results from 1,208,137 procedures in the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry).

Authors:  J Matthew Brennan; Jeptha P Curtis; David Dai; Susan Fitzgerald; Akshay K Khandelwal; John A Spertus; Sunil V Rao; Mandeep Singh; Richard E Shaw; Kalon K L Ho; Ronald J Krone; William S Weintraub; W Douglas Weaver; Eric D Peterson
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 11.195

8.  Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  Holger Thiele; Uwe Zeymer; Franz-Josef Neumann; Miroslaw Ferenc; Hans-Georg Olbrich; Jörg Hausleiter; Gert Richardt; Marcus Hennersdorf; Klaus Empen; Georg Fuernau; Steffen Desch; Ingo Eitel; Rainer Hambrecht; Jörg Fuhrmann; Michael Böhm; Henning Ebelt; Steffen Schneider; Gerhard Schuler; Karl Werdan
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-08-26       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States.

Authors:  Rohan Khera; Peter Cram; Mary Vaughan-Sarrazin; Phillip A Horwitz; Saket Girotra
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 2.778

10.  Randomized trial of complete versus lesion-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and multivessel disease: the CvLPRIT trial.

Authors:  Anthony H Gershlick; Jamal Nasir Khan; Damian J Kelly; John P Greenwood; Thiagarajah Sasikaran; Nick Curzen; Daniel J Blackman; Miles Dalby; Kathryn L Fairbrother; Winston Banya; Duolao Wang; Marcus Flather; Simon L Hetherington; Andrew D Kelion; Suneel Talwar; Mark Gunning; Roger Hall; Howard Swanton; Gerry P McCann
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2015-03-17       Impact factor: 24.094

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  When to Achieve Complete Revascularization in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Giulia Masiero; Francesco Cardaioli; Giulio Rodinò; Giuseppe Tarantini
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-05-31       Impact factor: 4.964

2.  Outcomes Associated With Peripheral Artery Disease in Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Nino Mihatov; Ramya C Mosarla; Ajay J Kirtane; Sahil A Parikh; Kenneth Rosenfield; Siyan Chen; Yang Song; Robert W Yeh; Eric A Secemsky
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 27.203

Review 3.  Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in High-Risk Settings.

Authors:  Mohamed A Omer; Jose E Exaire; Jacob C Jentzer; Yader B Sandoval; Mandeep Singh; Charles R Cagin; Islam Y Elgendy; Tahir Tak
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2021-02-12

4.  Implications of Myocardial Infarction on Management and Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Richard G Jung; Pietro Di Santo; Rebecca Mathew; Omar Abdel-Razek; Simon Parlow; Trevor Simard; Jeffrey A Marbach; Taylor Gillmore; Brennan Mao; Jordan Bernick; Pascal Theriault-Lauzier; Angel Fu; Lawrence Lau; Pouya Motazedian; Juan J Russo; Marino Labinaz; Benjamin Hibbert
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2021-10-29       Impact factor: 5.501

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.