CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

急性冠脉综合征

科研文章

荐读文献

A systematic review of factors predicting door to balloon time in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous intervention Correlation and prognostic role of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and SYNTAX score in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: A six-year experience Pharmacoinvasive and Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategies in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (from the Mayo Clinic STEMI Network) Oxygen Therapy in Suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction Symptom onset-to-balloon time and mortality in the first seven years after STEMI treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention Aggressive Measures to Decrease Causes of delay and associated mortality in patients transferred with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction Nonsystem reasons for delay in door-to-balloon time and associated in-hospital mortality: a report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry High-Sensitivity Troponins and Outcomes After Myocardial Infarction China PEACE risk estimation tool for in-hospital death from acute myocardial infarction: an early risk classification tree for decisions about fibrinolytic therapy

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.