CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

Twenty Year Trends and Sex Differences in Young Adults Hospitalized With Acute Myocardial Infarction 4-Step Protocol for Disparities in STEMI Care and Outcomes in Women Catheter Ablation of Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation Storm After Myocardial Infarction: A Multicenter Study Trends in early aspirin use among patients with acute myocardial infarction in China, 2001-2011: the China PEACE-Retrospective AMI study Relationship Between Infarct Size and Outcomes Following Primary PCI: Patient-Level Analysis From 10 Randomized Trials Risk of Myocardial Infarction in Anticoagulated Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Direct comparison of cardiac myosin-binding protein C with cardiac troponins for the early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction High-Sensitivity Troponin I Levels and Coronary Artery Disease Severity, Progression, and Long-Term Outcomes

Review Article2018 Oct 16;72(16):1972-1980.

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Cardiac Shock Care Centers: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Rab T, Ratanapo S, Kern KB et al. Keywords: cardiogenic shock; care pathway; shock center

ABSTRACT

Despite advances over the past decade, the incidence of cardiogenic shock secondary to acute myocardial infarction has increased, with an unchanged mortality near 50%. Recent trials have not clarified the best strategies in treatment. While dedicated cardiac shock centers are being established, there are no standardized agreements on the utilization of mechanical circulatory support and the timeliness of percutaneous coronary intervention strategies. In some centers and prospective registries, outcomes after placement of advanced mechanical circulatory support prior to reperfusion therapy with percutaneous coronary intervention have been encouraging with improved survival. Here, we suggest systems of care with a treatment pathway for patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.