CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

急性冠脉综合征

Abstract

Recommended Article

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 Association of the PHACTR1/EDN1 Genetic Locus With Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection Diagnosis and Prognosis of Coronary Artery Disease with SPECT and PET Incidence and prognostic implication of unrecognized myocardial scar characterized by cardiac magnetic resonance in diabetic patients without clinical evidence of myocardial infarction 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 Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock Cardiovascular Mortality After Type 1 and Type 2 Myocardial Infarction in Young Adults Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of DAPT disruption due to non-compliance vs. bleeding after PCI: insights from the PARIS Registry

Original ResearchVolume 13, Issue 10, May 2020

JOURNAL:JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions Article Link

Multivessel Versus Culprit-Vessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock

A Lemor, MB Basir, and on behalf of the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative Investigators. Keywords: AMI; cardiogenic shock; culprit; multivessel

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - This study sought to compare outcomes of patients enrolled in the NCSI (National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative) trial who were treated using a revascularization strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of multivessel PCI (MV-PCI) versus culprit-vessel PCI (CV-PCI).

 

BACKGROUND - In patients with multivessel disease who present with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS), intervening on the nonculprit vessel is controversial. There are conflicting published reports and lack of evidence, particularly in patients treated with early mechanical circulatory support (MCS).

 

METHODS - From July 2016 to December 2019, patients who presented with AMICS to 57 participating hospitals were included in this analysis. All patients were treated using a standard shock protocol emphasizing early MCS, revascularization, and invasive hemodynamic monitoring. Patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) were analyzed according to whether CV-PCI or MV-PCI was undertaken during the index procedure.

 

RESULTS - Of 198 patients with MVCAD, 126 underwent MV-PCI (64%) and 72 underwent CV-PCI (36%). Demographics between the cohorts were similar with respect to age, sex, history of diabetes, prior PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting, and prior history of myocardial infarction. Patients who underwent MV-PCI had a trend toward more severe impairment of cardiac output and worse lactate clearance on presentation, and cardiac performance was significantly worse at 12 h. However, 24 h from PCI, the hemometabolic derangements were similar. Survival and rates of acute kidney injury were not significantly different between groups (69.8% MV-PCI vs. 65.3% CV-PCI; p = 0.51; and 29.9% vs. 34.2%; p = 0.64, respectively).

 

CONCLUSIONS - In patients with MVCAD presenting with AMICS treated with early MCS, revascularization of nonculprit lesions was associated with similar hospital survival and acute kidney injury when compared with culprit-only PCI. Selective nonculprit PCI can be safety performed in AMICS in patients supported with mechanical circulatory support.