CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

Radial versus femoral access and bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome (MATRIX): final 1-year results of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial 4-Step Protocol for Disparities in STEMI Care and Outcomes in Women Long-term survival and causes of death in patients with ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome without obstructive coronary artery disease Sex differences in discharge destination following acute myocardial infarction Impact of the US Food and Drug Administration–Approved Sex-Specific Cutoff Values for High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin T to Diagnose Myocardial Infarction How Will the Transition to hs-cTn Affect the Diagnosis of Type 1 and 2 MI? Managing Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Comprehensive Review Early invasive versus non-invasive treatment in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (FRISC-II): 15 year follow-up of a prospective, randomised, multicentre study

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.)