CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

Aggressive Measures to Decrease "Door to Balloon" Time and Incidence of Unnecessary Cardiac Catheterization: Potential Risks and Role of Quality Improvement High-Sensitivity Troponins and Outcomes After Myocardial Infarction Comparison of hospital variation in acute myocardial infarction care and outcome between Sweden and United Kingdom: population based cohort study using nationwide clinical registries Symptom onset-to-balloon time and mortality in the first seven years after STEMI treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention Balloon-to-door time: emerging evidence for shortening hospital stay after primary PCI for STEMI Comparison of Outcomes of Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treated by Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Analyzed by Age Groups (<75, 75 to 85, and >85 Years); (Results from the Bremen STEMI Registry) The China Patient-centered Evaluative Assessment of Cardiac Events (PEACE) Prospective Study of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Study Design Prognostic Significance of Complex Ventricular Arrhythmias Complicating ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

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.