CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction During the COVID-19 Pandemic 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization - The Task Force on myocardial revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Association for Cardio- Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) Prognostic significance of QRS fragmentation and correlation with infarct size in patients with anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the INFUSE-AMI trial Comparison of Physician Visual Assessment With Quantitative Coronary Angiography in Assessment of Stenosis Severity in China Comparison of Delay Times Between Symptom Onset of an Acute ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction and Hospital Arrival in Men and Women <65 Years Versus ≥65 Years of Age.: Findings From the Multicenter Munich Examination of Delay in Patients Experiencing Acute Myocardial Infarction (MEDEA) Study Silent Myocardial Infarction and Long-Term Risk of Heart Failure: The ARIC Study 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) PCI Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Clinical Trial2017 Dec 21;377(25):2419-2432.

JOURNAL:N Engl J Med. Article Link

PCI Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M et al. Keywords: PCI strategy; Coronary Disease/​Myocardial Infarction; Cardiogenic Shock

Abstract


BACKGROUND - In patients who have acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock, early revascularization of the culprit artery by means of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves outcomes. However, the majority of patients with cardiogenic shock have multivessel disease, and whether PCI should be performed immediately for stenoses in nonculprit arteries is controversial.


METHODS - In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 706 patients who had multivessel disease, acute myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock to one of two initial revascularization strategies: either PCI of the culprit lesion only, with the option of staged revascularization of nonculprit lesions, or immediate multivessel PCI. The primary end point was a composite of death or severe renal failure leading to renal-replacement therapy within 30 days after randomization. Safety end points included bleeding and stroke.


RESULTS - At 30 days, the composite primary end point of death or renal-replacement therapy had occurred in 158 of the 344 patients (45.9%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group and in 189 of the 341 patients (55.4%) in the multivessel PCI group (relative risk, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01). The relative risk of death in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group as compared with the multivessel PCI group was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.98; P=0.03), and the relative risk of renal-replacement therapy was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.49 to 1.03; P=0.07). The time to hemodynamic stabilization, the risk of catecholamine therapy and the duration of such therapy, the levels of troponin T and creatine kinase, and the rates of bleeding and stroke did not differ significantly between the two groups.


CONCLUSIONS - Among patients who had multivessel coronary artery disease and acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock, the 30-day risk of a composite of death or severe renal failure leading to renal-replacement therapy was lower among those who initially underwent PCI of the culprit lesion only than among those who underwent immediate multivessel PCI. (Funded by the European Union 7th Framework Program and others; CULPRIT-SHOCK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927549.)