CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

急性冠脉综合征

科研文章

荐读文献

Circulating MicroRNAs and Monocyte-Platelet Aggregate Formation in Acute Coronary Syndrome Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome Prognostic value of fibrinogen in patients with coronary artery disease and prediabetes or diabetes following percutaneous coronary intervention: 5-year findings from a large cohort study Revascularization Strategies in STEMI with Multivessel Disease: Deciding on Culprit Versus Complete-Ad Hoc or Staged Epinephrine Versus Norepinephrine for Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction Risk Factors Associated With Major Cardiovascular Events 1 Year After Acute Myocardial Infarction Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock Implications of Alternative Definitions of Peri-Procedural Myocardial Infarction After Coronary Revascularization 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 4-Step Protocol for Disparities in STEMI Care and Outcomes in Women

Original Research2019 Jun 1;93(7):1173-1183.

JOURNAL:Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Improved Outcomes Associated with the use of Shock Protocols: Updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative

Basir MB, Kapur NK, National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative Investigators. Keywords: ACS/NSTEMI; ECMO/IABP/Tandem/Impella; acute myocardial infarction/STEMI; heart failure; hemodynamics; mechanical circulatory support; shock, cardiogenic

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - The National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative is a single-arm, prospective, multicenter study to assess outcomes associated with early mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

 

METHODS - Between July 2016 and February 2019, 35 sites participated and enrolled into the study. All centers agreed to treat patients with AMICS using a standard protocol emphasizing invasive hemodynamic monitoring and rapid initiation of MCS. Inclusion and exclusion criteria mimicked those of the "SHOCK" trial with an additional exclusion criteria of intra-aortic balloon pump counter-pulsation prior to MCS.

 

RESULTS - A total of 171 consecutive patients were enrolled. Patients had an average age of 63 years, 77% were male, and 68% were admitted with AMICS. About 83% of patients were on vasopressors or inotropes, 20% had a witnessed out of hospital cardiac arrest, 29% had in-hospital cardiac arrest, and 10% were under active cardiopulmonary resuscitation during MCS implantation. In accordance with the protocol, 74% of patients had MCS implanted prior to PCI. Right heart catheterization was performed in 92%. About 78% of patients presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction with average door to support times of 85 ± 63 min and door to balloon times of 87 ± 58 min. Survival to discharge was 72%. Creatinine 2, lactate >4, cardiac power output (CPO) <0.6 W, and age70 years were predictors of mortality. Lactate and CPO measurements at 12-24 hr reliably predicted overall mortality postindex procedure.

 

CONCLUSION - In contemporary practice, use of a shock protocol emphasizing best practices is associated with improved outcomes.

 

© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.