Background Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) infrequently occurs after acute stroke. The Heart‐brain team approach has a potential to appropriately manage this poststroke cardiovascular complication. However, clinical outcomes of AMI complicating acute stroke (AMI‐CAS) with the heart‐brain team approach have not been characterized. The current study investigated cardiovascular outcomes in patients with AMI‐CAS managed by a heart‐brain team. Methods and Results We retrospectively analyzed 2390 patients with AMI at our institute (January 1, 2007–September 30, 2020). AMI‐CAS was defined as the occurrence of AMI within 14 days after acute stroke. Major adverse cerebral/cardiovascular events (cardiac‐cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) and major bleeding events were compared in subjects with AMI‐CAS and those without acute stroke. AMI‐CAS was identified in 1.6% of the subjects. Most AMI‐CASs (37/39=94.9%) presented ischemic stroke. Median duration of AMI from the onset of acute stroke was 2 days. Patients with AMI‐CAS less frequently received primary percutaneous coronary intervention (43.6% versus 84.7%; P <0.001) and dual‐antiplatelet therapy (38.5% versus 85.7%; P <0.001), and 33.3% of them did not receive any antithrombotic agents (versus 1.3%; P <0.001). During the observational period (median, 2.4 years [interquartile range, 1.1–4.4 years]), patients with AMI‐CAS exhibited a greater likelihood of experiencing major adverse cerebral/cardiovascular events (hazard ratio [HR], 3.47 [95% CI, 1.99–6.05]; P <0.001) and major bleeding events (HR, 3.30 [95% CI, 1.34–8.10]; P =0.009). These relationships still existed even after adjusting for clinical characteristics and medication use (major adverse cerebral/cardiovascular event: HR, 1.87 [95% CI, 1.02–3.42]; P =0.04; major bleeding: HR, 2.67 [95% CI, 1.03–6.93]; P =0.04). Conclusions Under the heart‐brain team approach, AMI‐CAS was still a challenging disease, reflected by less adoption of primary percutaneous coronary intervention and antithrombotic therapies, with substantially elevated cardiovascular and major bleeding risks. Our findings underscore the need for a further refined approach to mitigate their ischemic/bleeding risks.
Background Thyroid storm (TS) complicated by cardiogenic shock is associated with high mortality due to the high incidence of multiple organ failure. It is recommended that TS patients with hepatic failure undergo plasma exchange (PE) and receive optimal anti-hyperthyroid medications. However, the effect of PE on cardiac dysfunction in TS patients has been unclear. Case Summary A 46-year-old woman was admitted to our hospital for dyspnea and tachycardia. She was diagnosed with TS pursuant to Graves’ disease complicated by acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). Cardiac function was remarkably impaired (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] = 15–20%), with rapid atrial fibrillation. Despite management of both ADHF and hyperthyroidism, cardiogenic shock developed; therefore, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP) were initiated. PE was performed after severe hepatic failure manifested on day 2. After the first three PE treatments, cardiac and hepatic function improved immediately but deteriorated the next day. The improvement persisted after the fourth PE, and the patient was weaned from VA-ECMO and IABP on days 10 and 11, respectively. She was discharged on day 37, and her cardiac function was still normal 1.5 years later. Discussion In hyperthyroidism, severe hepatic dysfunction is more likely to occur in patients with acute ADHF than in those without it. PE has the potential to improve not only hepatic but also cardiac dysfunction under optimal antithyroid treatment, especially in patients with TS complicated by severe hepatic dysfunction.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.