CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

Incidence and prognostic implication of unrecognized myocardial scar characterized by cardiac magnetic resonance in diabetic patients without clinical evidence of myocardial infarction A case of influenza type a myocarditis that presents with ST elevation MI, cardiogenic shock, acute renal failure, and rhabdomyolysis and with rapid recovery after treatment with oseltamivir and intra-aortic balloon pump support Analysis of reperfusion time trends in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction across New York State from 2004 to 2012 Outcome of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention during on- versus off-hours (a Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction [HORIZONS-AMI] trial substudy) Relationship between therapeutic effects on infarct size in acute myocardial infarction and therapeutic effects on 1-year outcomes: A patient-level analysis of randomized clinical trials Cardiovascular Risk and Statin Eligibility of Young Adults After an MI: Partners YOUNG-MI Registry Acute Myocardial Infarction after Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza Infection Age-specific gender differences in early mortality following ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in China
|<<... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ...>>|

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