CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

Interval From Initiation of Prasugrel to Coronary Angiography in Patients With Non–ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Prevalence of Angina Among Primary Care Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Analysis of reperfusion time trends in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction across New York State from 2004 to 2012 Short Duration of DAPT Versus De-Escalation After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndromes Remote ischaemic conditioning and healthcare system delay in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction Late Survival Benefit of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Compared With Medical Therapy in Patients With Coronary Chronic Total Occlusion: A 10-Year Follow-Up Study Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in Patients with STEMI Treated with Fibrinolytic Therapy: TREAT Trial A systematic review of factors predicting door to balloon time in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous intervention

Original Research2016 Dec;105(12):1030-1041.

JOURNAL:Clin Res Cardiol. Article Link

Culprit lesion location and outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II-trial

Fuernau G, Fengler K, Thiele H et al. Keywords: cardiogenic shock; culprit lesion; infarct-related artery; mortality; myocardial infarction; IABP-SHOCK II-trial

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - In myocardial infarction without cardiogenic shock (CS), the affected coronary vessel has significant influence on the final infarct size and patient prognosis. CS data on this relation are scarce. The objective of this study was to determine the prognostic relevance of the culprit lesion location in patients with CS complicating acute myocardial infarction.

 

METHODS - In the Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) trial patients with CS were randomized to therapy with intraaortic balloon pump or control. Additional CS patients not eligible for the randomized trial were included in a registry. We compared the location of the culprit lesions in these patients with regard to the affected coronary vessel [left main (LM), left anterior descending (LAD), left circumflex (LCX) and right coronary artery (RCA)] and location within the vessel (proximal, mid or distal) regarding short- and long-term outcome.

 

RESULTS - Of 758 patients, the majority had the culprit lesion in the LAD (44 %) compared to RCA (27 %), LCX (19 %) or LM (10 %). Proximal lesions were more frequent than mid or distal culprit lesions (60 vs. 27 vs. 13 %, p < 0.001). No differences were observed for mortality with respect to either culprit vessel (log-rank p value = 0.54). In contrast, a higher mortality was observed for patients with distal culprit lesions after 1 year (log-rank p value = 0.04). This difference persisted after multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio for distal lesions 1.40; 95 % confidential interval 1.03-1.90; p = 0.03).

 

CONCLUSION - For patients with CS complicating myocardial infarction, the culprit vessel seems to be unrelated with mortality whereas distal culprit lesions may have a worse outcome.