CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

Comparative Effectiveness of β-Blocker Use Beyond 3 Years After Myocardial Infarction and Long-Term Outcomes Among Elderly Patients Improved Outcomes Associated with the use of Shock Protocols: Updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative Proportion and Morphological Features of Restenosis Lesions With Acute Coronary Syndrome in Different Timings of Target Lesion Revascularization After Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines Association of Plaque Location and Vessel Geometry Determined by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography With Future Acute Coronary Syndrome–Causing Culprit Lesions Aggressive lipid-lowering therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention – for whom and how? Positive remodelling of coronary arteries on computed tomography coronary angiogram: an observational study 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes

Original Research2018 Feb 27;71(8):844-856.

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock

Hahn JY, KAMIR Investigators et al. Keywords: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; cardiogenic shock; complete revascularization; multivessel disease; outcomes; percutaneous coronary intervention

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Recent trials demonstrated a benefit of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for noninfarct-related artery (non-IRA) stenosis over IRA-only PCI in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) multivessel disease. However, evidence is limited in patients with cardiogenic shock.


OBJECTIVES - This study investigated the prognostic impact of multivessel PCI in patients with STEMI multivessel disease presenting with cardiogenic shock, using the nationwide, multicenter, prospective KAMIR-NIH (Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction-National Institutes of Health) registry.

METHODS - Among 13,104 consecutive patients enrolled in the KAMIR-NIH registry, we selected patients with STEMI with multivessel disease presenting with cardiogenic shock and who underwent primary PCI. Primary outcome was 1-year all-cause death, and secondary outcomes included patient-oriented composite outcome (a composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, and any repeat revascularization) and its individual components.

RESULTS - A total of 659 patients were treated by multivessel PCI (n = 260) or IRA-only PCI (n = 399) strategy. The risk of all-cause death and non-IRA repeat revascularization was significantly lower in the multivessel PCI group than in the IRA-only PCI group (21.3% vs. 31.7%; hazard ratio: 0.59; 95% confidence interval: 0.43 to 0.82; p = 0.001; and 6.7% vs. 8.2%; hazard ratio: 0.39; 95% confidence interval: 0.17 to 0.90; p = 0.028, respectively). Results were consistent after multivariable regression, propensity-score matching, and inverse probability weighting to adjust for baseline differences. In a multivariable model, multivessel PCI was independently associated with reduced risk of 1-year all-cause death and patient-oriented composite outcome.

CONCLUSIONS - Of patients with STEMI and multivessel disease with cardiogenic shock, multivessel PCI was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause death and non-IRA repeat revascularization. Our data suggest that multivessel PCI for complete revascularization is a reasonable strategy to improve outcomes in patients with STEMI with cardiogenic shock.

Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.