CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI Focused Update on Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Oxygen Therapy in Suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction Short Duration of DAPT Versus De-Escalation After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndromes Direct comparison of cardiac myosin-binding protein C with cardiac troponins for the early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction Bare metal versus drug eluting stents for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in the TOTAL trial Door to Balloon Time: Is There a Point That Is Too Short? Impact of door-to-balloon time on long-term mortality in high- and low-risk patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction Successful catheter ablation of electrical storm after myocardial infarction

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.