Literature DB >> 8162800

Treatment strategies for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock in a community hospital.

R J Stomel1, M Rasak, E R Bates.   

Abstract

The risk and benefits of three treatment strategies were examined in 64 consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. Thirteen patients received thrombolytic therapy (group 1), 29 patients received intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation support (group 2), and 22 patients were treated with combined thrombolytic therapy and intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation support (group 3). The groups were similar in regard to age, sex, medical history, hemodynamic data, and extent of coronary artery disease. Survival was improved in patients treated with combined thrombolytic therapy and intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation support (group 1, 23 percent; group 2, 28 percent; and group 3, 68 percent; p = 0.0049). Seven percent of the patients who remained at the community hospital survived vs 69 percent who were transferred to a tertiary care center (p < 0.001), and 17 percent survived who were treated medically vs 71 percent who received revascularization (p < 0.001). These findings suggest that patients who present to a community hospital in cardiogenic shock can have their conditions stabilized, and they can then be transferred to a tertiary care hospital for revascularization and have the same outcome as patients who initially present to tertiary care hospitals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8162800     DOI: 10.1378/chest.105.4.997

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chest        ISSN: 0012-3692            Impact factor:   9.410


  7 in total

1.  Thrombolysis in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 2.300

2.  Unequal access to interventional cardiac care in Nova Scotia in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  J Mayich; Jafna L Cox; Karen J Buth; Jean-Francois Légaré
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2006-03-15       Impact factor: 5.223

Review 3.  Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Aditya Mandawat; Sunil V Rao
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 6.546

Review 4.  [Reperfusion therapy and mechanical circulatory support in patients in cardiogenic shock].

Authors:  K H Scholz
Journal:  Herz       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 1.443

5.  Thrombolysis and counterpulsation to improve survival in myocardial infarction complicated by hypotension and suspected cardiogenic shock or heart failure: results of the TACTICS Trial.

Authors:  E Magnus Ohman; John Nanas; Robert J Stomel; Massoud A Leesar; Dennis W T Nielsen; Daniel O'Dea; Felix J Rogers; Daniel Harber; Michael P Hudson; Elizabeth Fraulo; Linda K Shaw; Kerry L Lee
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 6.  Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  Susanne Unverzagt; Michael Buerke; Antoinette de Waha; Johannes Haerting; Diana Pietzner; Melchior Seyfarth; Holger Thiele; Karl Werdan; Uwe Zeymer; Roland Prondzinsky
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-03-27

7.  The outcomes of intra-aortic balloon pump usage in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a comprehensive meta-analysis of 33 clinical trials and 18,889 patients.

Authors:  Zhong-Guo Fan; Xiao-Fei Gao; Li-Wen Chen; Xiao-Bo Li; Ming-Xue Shao; Qian Ji; Hao Zhu; Yi-Zhi Ren; Shao-Liang Chen; Nai-Liang Tian
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 2.711

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.