CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

急性冠脉综合征

Abstract

Recommended Article

Contemporary Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Myocardial Infarction in the Absence of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Association of the PHACTR1/EDN1 Genetic Locus With Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection Cardiovascular Mortality After Type 1 and Type 2 Myocardial Infarction in Young Adults Incidence and prognostic implication of unrecognized myocardial scar characterized by cardiac magnetic resonance in diabetic patients without clinical evidence of myocardial infarction Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock Refractory Angina: From Pathophysiology to New Therapeutic Nonpharmacological Technologies Improved outcomes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction during the last 20 years are related to implementation of evidence-based treatments: experiences from the SWEDEHEART registry 1995-2014 Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of DAPT disruption due to non-compliance vs. bleeding after PCI: insights from the PARIS Registry
|<<... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ...>>|

Original Research2019 Jun 1;93(7):1173-1183.

JOURNAL：Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Improved Outcomes Associated with the use of Shock Protocols: Updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative

Basir MB, Kapur NK, National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative Investigators. Keywords: ACS/NSTEMI; ECMO/IABP/Tandem/Impella; acute myocardial infarction/STEMI; heart failure; hemodynamics; mechanical circulatory support; shock, cardiogenic

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - The National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative is a single-arm, prospective, multicenter study to assess outcomes associated with early mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

 

METHODS - Between July 2016 and February 2019, 35 sites participated and enrolled into the study. All centers agreed to treat patients with AMICS using a standard protocol emphasizing invasive hemodynamic monitoring and rapid initiation of MCS. Inclusion and exclusion criteria mimicked those of the "SHOCK" trial with an additional exclusion criteria of intra-aortic balloon pump counter-pulsation prior to MCS.

 

RESULTS - A total of 171 consecutive patients were enrolled. Patients had an average age of 63 years, 77% were male, and 68% were admitted with AMICS. About 83% of patients were on vasopressors or inotropes, 20% had a witnessed out of hospital cardiac arrest, 29% had in-hospital cardiac arrest, and 10% were under active cardiopulmonary resuscitation during MCS implantation. In accordance with the protocol, 74% of patients had MCS implanted prior to PCI. Right heart catheterization was performed in 92%. About 78% of patients presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction with average door to support times of 85 ± 63 min and door to balloon times of 87 ± 58 min. Survival to discharge was 72%. Creatinine ≥2, lactate >4, cardiac power output (CPO) <0.6 W, and age ≥ 70 years were predictors of mortality. Lactate and CPO measurements at 12-24 hr reliably predicted overall mortality postindex procedure.

 

CONCLUSION - In contemporary practice, use of a shock protocol emphasizing best practices is associated with improved outcomes.

 

© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top