CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

血流储备分数

Abstract

Recommended Article

Lesion-Specific and Vessel-Related Determinants of Fractional Flow Reserve Beyond Coronary Artery Stenosis Coronary Physiology in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Randomized Comparison of FFR-Guided and Angiography-Guided Provisional Stenting of True Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: The DKCRUSH-VI Trial (Double Kissing Crush Versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions VI) The Impact of Coronary Physiology on Contemporary Clinical Decision Making Utilization and Outcomes of Measuring Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Prognostic Implications of Plaque Characteristics and Stenosis Severity in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease The impact of downstream coronary stenoses on fractional flow reserve assessment of intermediate left main disease Fractional flow reserve in clinical practice: from wire-based invasive measurement to image-based computation

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.