CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

Acute Coronary Syndrom

科研文章

荐读文献

Pharmacotherapy in the Management of Anxiety and Pain During Acute Coronary Syndromes and the Risk of Developing Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Heart Regeneration by Endogenous Stem Cells and Cardiomyocyte Proliferation: Controversy, Fallacy, and Progress Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome Culprit lesion location and outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II-trial Association Between Collateral Circulation and Myocardial Viability Evaluated by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Coronary Artery Chronic Total Occlusion Optimum Blood Pressure in Patients With Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiac Arrest Early Versus Standard Care Invasive Examination and Treatment of Patients with Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: The VERDICT (Very EaRly vs Deferred Invasive evaluation using Computerized Tomography) - Randomized Controlled Trial Association of Parenteral Anticoagulation Therapy With Outcomes in Chinese Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome An EAPCI Expert Consensus Document on Ischaemia with Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries in Collaboration with European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Coronary Pathophysiology & Microcirculation Endorsed by Coronary Vasomotor Disorders International Study Group Clinical and Angiographic Features of Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and Acute Myocardial Infarction

Clinical TrialVolume 72, Issue 2, July 2018

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Epinephrine Versus Norepinephrine for Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction

B Levy, R Clere-Jehl, A Legras et al. Keywords: acute myocardial infarctioncardiogenic shock; epinephrinenorepinephrinevasopressor

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Vasopressor agents could have certain specific effects in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) after myocardial infarction, which may influence outcome. Although norepinephrine and epinephrine are currently the most commonly used agents, no randomized trial has compared their effects, and intervention data are lacking.


OBJECTIVES - The goal of this paper was to compare in a prospective, double-blind, multicenter, randomized study, the efficacy and safety of epinephrine and norepinephrine in patients with CS after acute myocardial infarction.

METHODS - The primary efficacy outcome was cardiac index evolution, and the primary safety outcome was the occurrence of refractory CS. Refractory CS was defined as CS with sustained hypotension, end-organ hypoperfusion and hyperlactatemia, and high inotrope and vasopressor doses.

RESULTS - Fifty-seven patients were randomized into 2 study arms, epinephrine and norepinephrine. For the primary efficacy endpoint, cardiac index evolution was similar between the 2 groups (p = 0.43) from baseline (H0) to H72. For the main safety endpoint, the observed higher incidence of refractory shock in the epinephrine group (10 of 27 [37%] vs. norepinephrine 2 of 30 [7%]; p = 0.008) led to early termination of the study. Heart rate increased significantly with epinephrine from H2 to H24 while remaining unchanged with norepinephrine (p < 0.0001). Several metabolic changes were unfavorable to epinephrine compared with norepinephrine, including an increase in cardiac double product (p = 0.0002) and lactic acidosis from H2 to H24 (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS - In patients with CS secondary to acute myocardial infarction, the use of epinephrine compared with norepinephrine was associated with similar effects on arterial pressure and cardiac index and a higher incidence of refractory shock. (Study Comparing the Efficacy and Tolerability of Epinephrine and Norepinephrine in Cardiogenic Shock [OptimaCC]; NCT01367743)