Jakob Josiassen1, Jacob E Møller1,2, Lene Holmvang1,3, Christian Hassager1,3. 1. Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet. 2. Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense. 3. Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Acute revascularization is with some evidence the only intervention proven to improve the prognosis in myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock but several interventions are continuously being investigated in order to increase survival among these patients. In this review, several aspects related to the interventional treatment of cardiogenic shock are discussed chronologically from symptom debut to leaving the cardiac catheterization laboratory. RECENT FINDINGS: In the randomized CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, a culprit-only revascularization strategy was reported superior to immediate complete revascularization among patients with multivessel disease. Recent large-scale observational data underline the marked prognostic importance of time from medical contact to revascularization in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock. Moreover, studies suggest a potential beneficial effect of a transradial vascular access as well as early initialization of mechanical circulatory support in carefully selected patients. This, however, needs further validation. SUMMARY: Acute revascularization remains a crucial part of the initial management of acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock. Among cardiogenic shock patients presenting with multivessel disease, a culprit-only approach should be the routine strategy. Time to revascularization plays a crucial role in the setting of cardiogenic shock, why prehospital optimization and triaging may be the most important factors in order to improve prognosis in AMI-related cardiogenic shock.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Acute revascularization is with some evidence the only intervention proven to improve the prognosis in myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock but several interventions are continuously being investigated in order to increase survival among these patients. In this review, several aspects related to the interventional treatment of cardiogenic shock are discussed chronologically from symptom debut to leaving the cardiac catheterization laboratory. RECENT FINDINGS: In the randomized CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, a culprit-only revascularization strategy was reported superior to immediate complete revascularization among patients with multivessel disease. Recent large-scale observational data underline the marked prognostic importance of time from medical contact to revascularization in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock. Moreover, studies suggest a potential beneficial effect of a transradial vascular access as well as early initialization of mechanical circulatory support in carefully selected patients. This, however, needs further validation. SUMMARY: Acute revascularization remains a crucial part of the initial management of acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock. Among cardiogenic shockpatients presenting with multivessel disease, a culprit-only approach should be the routine strategy. Time to revascularization plays a crucial role in the setting of cardiogenic shock, why prehospital optimization and triaging may be the most important factors in order to improve prognosis in AMI-related cardiogenic shock.