CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

State of the art: duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary stent implantation - past, present and future perspectives. 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 Prognostic Implication of Thermodilution Coronary Flow Reserve in Patients Undergoing Fractional Flow Reserve Measurement Coronary Artery Plaque Characteristics Associated With Adverse Outcomes in the SCOT-HEART Study Comparison of Stent Expansion Guided by Optical Coherence Tomography Versus Intravascular Ultrasound: The ILUMIEN II Study (Observational Study of Optical Coherence Tomography [OCT] in Patients Undergoing Fractional Flow Reserve [FFR] and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) CSC Expert Consensus on Principles of Clinical Management of Patients with Severe Emergent Cardiovascular Diseases during the COVID-19 Epidemic Coronary Catheterization and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in China: 10-Year Results From the China PEACE-Retrospective CathPCI Study A prospective, randomised trial of transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement in operable elderly patients with aortic stenosis: the STACCATO trial SCAI Expert Consensus Statement Update on Best Practices for Transradial Angiography and Intervention Screening for Atrial Fibrillation With ECG: USPSTF Recommendation

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.