CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

Nonculprit Lesion Myocardial Infarction Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Proportion and Morphological Features of Restenosis Lesions With Acute Coronary Syndrome in Different Timings of Target Lesion Revascularization After Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation Systems of Care for ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines Association of Plaque Location and Vessel Geometry Determined by Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography With Future Acute Coronary Syndrome–Causing Culprit Lesions Aggressive lipid-lowering therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention – for whom and how? Positive remodelling of coronary arteries on computed tomography coronary angiogram: an observational study 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes

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.)