CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

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 New technologies for intensive prevention programs after myocardial infarction: rationale and design of the NET-IPP trial Mild Hypothermia in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Myocardial Infarction - The Randomized SHOCK-COOL Trial The prognostic role of mid-range ejection fraction in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction Invasive Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Improved outcomes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction during the last 20 years are related to implementation of evidence-based treatments: experiences from the SWEDEHEART registry 1995-2014 Epinephrine Versus Norepinephrine for Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction Letter by Jiang et al Regarding Article, “Direct Comparison of Cardiac Myosin-Binding Protein C With Cardiac Troponins for the Early Diagnosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction”

Clinical Trial2018 Jul 19.[Epub ahead of print]

JOURNAL:Circulation. Article Link

Mild Hypothermia in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Myocardial Infarction - The Randomized SHOCK-COOL Trial

Fuernau G, Beck J, Thiele H et al. Keywords: Acute Coronary Syndromes, Heart Failure and Cardiomyopathies, Invasive Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention, Acute Heart Failure, Interventions and ACS

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Experimental trials suggest improved outcome by mild therapeutic hypothermia for cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction. The objective of this study was to investigate hemodynamic effects of mild therapeutic hypothermia in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.


METHODS - Patients (n=40) with cardiogenic shock undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention without classical indication for mild therapeutic hypothermia underwent randomization in a 1:1 fashion to mild therapeutic hypothermia for 24 h or control. The primary endpoint was cardiac power index at 24 h; secondary endpoints included other hemodynamic parameters as well as serial measurements of arterial lactate.


RESULTS - No relevant differences were observed for the primary endpoint cardiac power index at 24 h (mild therapeutic hypothermia vs. control: 0.41 [interquartile range 0.31-0.52] vs. 0.36 [inter-quartile range 0.31-0.48] W/m2; p=0.50, median difference -0.025 [95% confidence interval -0.12 to 0.06 W/m2]). Similarly, all other hemodynamic measurements were not statistically different. Arterial lactate levels at 6, 8 and 10 hours were significantly higher in patients in the MTH group with a slower decline (p for interaction 0.03). There were no differences in 30-day mortality: (60 vs. 50%, hazard ratio 1.27 [95% confidence interval 0.55-2.94]; p=0.55).


CONCLUSIONS - In this randomized trial mild therapeutic hypothermia failed to show a substantial beneficial effect in patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction on cardiac power index at 24 h.


CLINICAL TRAIL REGISTRATION - URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifier: NCT01890317.