CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Readmissions Where Are the Solutions? Know Diabetes by Heart: A Partnership to Improve Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Multivessel PCI Guided by FFR or Angiography for Myocardial Infarction Lack of Association Between Heart Failure and Incident Cancer Imaging Coronary Anatomy and Reducing Myocardial Infarction Open sesame technique in percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction Deficiency of GATA3-Positive Macrophages Improves Cardiac Function Following Myocardial Infarction or Pressure Overload Hypertrophy High-Sensitivity Troponin and The Application of Risk Stratification Thresholds in Patients with Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation FAMOUS-NSTEMI randomized trial Optimal medical therapy vs. coronary revascularization for patients presenting with chronic total occlusion: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score adjusted studies

Original Research2019 Jun 1;93(7):1173-1183.

JOURNAL:Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Improved Outcomes Associated with the use of Shock Protocols: Updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative

Basir MB, Kapur NK, National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative Investigators. Keywords: ACS/NSTEMI; ECMO/IABP/Tandem/Impella; acute myocardial infarction/STEMI; heart failure; hemodynamics; mechanical circulatory support; shock, cardiogenic

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - The National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative is a single-arm, prospective, multicenter study to assess outcomes associated with early mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

 

METHODS - Between July 2016 and February 2019, 35 sites participated and enrolled into the study. All centers agreed to treat patients with AMICS using a standard protocol emphasizing invasive hemodynamic monitoring and rapid initiation of MCS. Inclusion and exclusion criteria mimicked those of the "SHOCK" trial with an additional exclusion criteria of intra-aortic balloon pump counter-pulsation prior to MCS.

 

RESULTS - A total of 171 consecutive patients were enrolled. Patients had an average age of 63 years, 77% were male, and 68% were admitted with AMICS. About 83% of patients were on vasopressors or inotropes, 20% had a witnessed out of hospital cardiac arrest, 29% had in-hospital cardiac arrest, and 10% were under active cardiopulmonary resuscitation during MCS implantation. In accordance with the protocol, 74% of patients had MCS implanted prior to PCI. Right heart catheterization was performed in 92%. About 78% of patients presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction with average door to support times of 85 ± 63 min and door to balloon times of 87 ± 58 min. Survival to discharge was 72%. Creatinine 2, lactate >4, cardiac power output (CPO) <0.6 W, and age70 years were predictors of mortality. Lactate and CPO measurements at 12-24 hr reliably predicted overall mortality postindex procedure.

 

CONCLUSION - In contemporary practice, use of a shock protocol emphasizing best practices is associated with improved outcomes.

 

© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.