CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

急性冠脉综合征

科研文章

荐读文献

Optimum Blood Pressure in Patients With Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiac Arrest Chronic total occlusion intervention of the non-infarct-related artery in acute myocardial infarction patients: the Korean multicenter chronic total occlusion registry Association of Silent Myocardial Infarction and Sudden Cardiac Death Improved Outcomes Associated with the use of Shock Protocols: Updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative Mild Hypothermia in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Myocardial Infarction - The Randomized SHOCK-COOL Trial Recommendations for Institutions Transitioning to High-Sensitivity Troponin Testing JACC Scientific Expert Panel Comparison in prevalence, predictors, and clinical outcome of VSR versus FWR after acute myocardial infarction: The prospective, multicenter registry MOODY trial-heart rupture analysis 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 Association of Plaque Location and Vessel Geometry Determined by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography With Future Acute Coronary Syndrome–Causing Culprit Lesions Implications of Alternative Definitions of Peri-Procedural Myocardial Infarction After Coronary Revascularization

Original Research2017 Oct;6(7):601-609.

JOURNAL:Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. Article Link

Editor's Choice- Impact of immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus culprit lesion intervention on 1-year outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Results of the randomised IABP-SHOCK II trial

Zeymer U, Werdan K, Thiele H et al. Keywords: multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention; cardiogenic shock; culprit artery; mortality; myocardial infarction; IABP-SHOCK II trial

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Current guidelines recommend immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with cardiogenic shock, despite the lack of randomised trials. We sought to investigate the use and impact on outcome of multivessel PCI in comparison to culprit lesion only PCI in a retrospective analysis in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.

 

METHODS AND RESULTS - In the randomised IABP-SHOCK II trial, investigating the effect of intra-aortic balloon pump on outcome, 451 (75%) of the total of 600 patients had multivessel coronary artery disease and underwent PCI. Immediate multivessel PCI was performed in 167 (37%) patients. TIMI 3 patency after PCI in all treated vessels was observed in 83.2% versus 79.0% of patients after multivessel versus culprit lesion PCI, respectively. The 30-day (44.9% vs. 42.3%) and 12-month (54.8% vs. 52.7%) mortality rates did not significantly differ between the two groups. In the multivariate analysis multivessel PCI was not associated with an improved mortality after 12 months (odds ratio 0.92, 95% confidence intervals 0.69-1.21).

 

CONCLUSION - In this retrospective analysis of the largest randomised study in cardiogenic shock immediate multivessel PCI was used in approximately one third of patients with cardiogenic shock. There was no benefit with immediate multivessel PCI in comparison to culprit lesion only PCI. Therefore a randomised trial is needed to determine the definitive role of multivessel PCI in cardiogenic shock.

 

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION - ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00491036.