CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Scientific Library

Abstract

Recommended Article

Epinephrine Versus Norepinephrine for Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction Risk Factors Associated With Major Cardiovascular Events 1 Year After Acute Myocardial Infarction LOX-1 in Atherosclerosis and Myocardial Ischemia: Biology, Genetics, and Modulation Considerations for Single-Measurement Risk-Stratification Strategies for Myocardial Infarction Using Cardiac Troponin Assays Clinical and genetic characteristics of pulmonary arterial hypertension in Lebanon Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guidance of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME): 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial Relations between implementation of new treatments and improved outcomes in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction during the last 20 years: experiences from SWEDEHEART registry 1995 to 2014 Long-Term Effect of Ultrathin-Strut Versus Thin-Strut Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Small Vessel Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Subgroup Analysis of the BIOSCIENCE Randomized Trial
|<<... 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 ...>>|

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