CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

急性冠脉综合征

科研文章

荐读文献

Association of Acute Procedural Results with Long-term Outcomes After CTO-PCI Optimal Timing of Intervention in NSTE-ACS Without Pre-Treatment The EARLY Randomized Trial Effect of Pre-Hospital Crushed Prasugrel Tablets in Patients with STEMI Planned for Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Randomized COMPARE CRUSH Trial Prevalence of Coronary Vasospasm Using Coronary Reactivity Testing in Patients With Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection Optimal medical therapy vs. coronary revascularization for patients presenting with chronic total occlusion: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score adjusted studies Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation FAMOUS-NSTEMI randomized trial Deficiency of GATA3-Positive Macrophages Improves Cardiac Function Following Myocardial Infarction or Pressure Overload Hypertrophy Acute Noncardiac Organ Failure in Acute Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock Stent Thrombosis Risk Over Time on the Basis of Clinical Presentation and Platelet Reactivity: Analysis From ADAPT-DES Comparison in prevalence, predictors, and clinical outcome of VSR versus FWR after acute myocardial infarction: The prospective, multicenter registry MOODY trial-heart rupture analysis

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.