CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

急性冠脉综合征

Abstract

Recommended Article

Chronic Kidney Disease and Coronary Artery Disease Comparative Effectiveness of β-Blocker Use Beyond 3 Years After Myocardial Infarction and Long-Term Outcomes Among Elderly Patients Proportion and Morphological Features of Restenosis Lesions With Acute Coronary Syndrome in Different Timings of Target Lesion Revascularization After Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation Short Duration of DAPT Versus De-Escalation After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndromes 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

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.