CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

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 Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in Patients with STEMI Treated with Fibrinolytic Therapy: TREAT Trial Association Between Collateral Circulation and Myocardial Viability Evaluated by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Coronary Artery Chronic Total Occlusion 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 Prevalence of Angina Among Primary Care Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Optimum Blood Pressure in Patients With Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiac Arrest Short term outcome following acute phase switch among P2Y12 inhibitors in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome treated with PCI: A systematic review and meta-analysis including 22,500 patients from 14 studies Clinical and Angiographic Features of Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and Acute Myocardial Infarction
|<<... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ...>>|

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.

>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top