CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

急性冠脉综合征

科研文章

荐读文献

Epinephrine Versus Norepinephrine for Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes Management of Myocardial Revascularization Failure: An Expert Consensus Document of the EAPCI Galectin-3 Levels and Outcomes After Myocardial Infarction: A Population-Based Study Association of Silent Myocardial Infarction and Sudden Cardiac Death Utility and Challenges of an Early Invasive Strategy in Patients Resuscitated From Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Risk Factors Associated With Major Cardiovascular Events 1 Year After Acute Myocardial Infarction Prognostic value of fibrinogen in patients with coronary artery disease and prediabetes or diabetes following percutaneous coronary intervention: 5-year findings from a large cohort study Impact of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Chronic Total Occlusion in Non-Infarct-Related Arteries in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction (from the COREA-AMI Registry) Heart Regeneration by Endogenous Stem Cells and Cardiomyocyte Proliferation: Controversy, Fallacy, and Progress
|<<... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ...>>|

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

> CBS 2019 注册

> CBS 2019 会议日程

> CBS 2019 学术征集

> CBS 2019 热点

 CBSMD

> CBSMD 网站注册

> 教育中心

> 荐读文献

> Top 10 阅读文献

> 文献导读
CBS 2019 CBS 2019 主席团 教育中心 科研动态
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top