CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Management of two major complications in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory: the no-reflow phenomenon and coronary perforations Long-Term Follow-Up of Complete Versus Lesion-Only Revascularization in STEMI and Multivessel Disease: The CvLPRIT Trial COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromboembolic Disease: Implications for Prevention, Antithrombotic Therapy, and Follow-up Proportion and Morphological Features of Restenosis Lesions With Acute Coronary Syndrome in Different Timings of Target Lesion Revascularization After Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation Management of Patients With NSTE-ACS: A Comparison of the Recent AHA/ACC and ESC Guidelines Early Diagnosis of Myocardial Infarction With Point-of-Care High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin I Association Between Haptoglobin Phenotype and Microvascular Obstruction in Patients With STEMI: A Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Study Guidelines in review: Comparison of the 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes and the 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation Utility and Challenges of an Early Invasive Strategy in Patients Resuscitated From Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA /ASH/ ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: Executive Summary : A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines

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.