CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

急性冠脉综合征

Abstract

Recommended Article

Prevalence of anginal symptoms and myocardial ischemia and their effect on clinical outcomes in outpatients with stable coronary artery disease: data from the International Observational CLARIFY Registry The year in cardiovascular medicine 2020: acute coronary syndromes and intensive cardiac care Intravenous Statin Administration During Myocardial Infarction Compared With Oral Post-Infarct Administration Prognostically relevant periprocedural myocardial injury and infarction associated with percutaneous coronary interventions: a Consensus Document of the ESC Working Group on Cellular Biology of the Heart and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) Comparison of the Preventive Efficacy of Rosuvastatin Versus Atorvastatin in Post-Contrast Acute Kidney Injury in Patients With ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Association of Silent Myocardial Infarction and Sudden Cardiac Death Transition of Macrophages to Fibroblast-Like Cells in Healing Myocardial Infarction A Novel Circulating MicroRNA for the Detection of Acute Myocarditis
|<<... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ...>>|

Clinical TrialVolume 72, Issue 2, July 2018

JOURNAL：J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Epinephrine Versus Norepinephrine for Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction

B Levy, R Clere-Jehl, A Legras et al. Keywords: acute myocardial infarctioncardiogenic shock; epinephrinenorepinephrinevasopressor

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - Vasopressor agents could have certain specific effects in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) after myocardial infarction, which may influence outcome. Although norepinephrine and epinephrine are currently the most commonly used agents, no randomized trial has compared their effects, and intervention data are lacking.


OBJECTIVES - The goal of this paper was to compare in a prospective, double-blind, multicenter, randomized study, the efficacy and safety of epinephrine and norepinephrine in patients with CS after acute myocardial infarction.

METHODS - The primary efficacy outcome was cardiac index evolution, and the primary safety outcome was the occurrence of refractory CS. Refractory CS was defined as CS with sustained hypotension, end-organ hypoperfusion and hyperlactatemia, and high inotrope and vasopressor doses.

RESULTS - Fifty-seven patients were randomized into 2 study arms, epinephrine and norepinephrine. For the primary efficacy endpoint, cardiac index evolution was similar between the 2 groups (p = 0.43) from baseline (H0) to H72. For the main safety endpoint, the observed higher incidence of refractory shock in the epinephrine group (10 of 27 [37%] vs. norepinephrine 2 of 30 [7%]; p = 0.008) led to early termination of the study. Heart rate increased significantly with epinephrine from H2 to H24 while remaining unchanged with norepinephrine (p < 0.0001). Several metabolic changes were unfavorable to epinephrine compared with norepinephrine, including an increase in cardiac double product (p = 0.0002) and lactic acidosis from H2 to H24 (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS - In patients with CS secondary to acute myocardial infarction, the use of epinephrine compared with norepinephrine was associated with similar effects on arterial pressure and cardiac index and a higher incidence of refractory shock. (Study Comparing the Efficacy and Tolerability of Epinephrine and Norepinephrine in Cardiogenic Shock [OptimaCC]; NCT01367743)
>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