Abstract:Among patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS), in-hospital mortality remains high. In the present study, we aimed to identify factors associated with clinical outcomes of acute MI patients with CS in a contemporary setting. A total of 1102 patients with acute MI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention were included, among whom 196 (17.8%) were complicated by CS. The primary outcome was all-cause death during hospitalization, and factors associated with… Show more
“…In a setting of acute MI, 5–10% of patients present with CS, with higher incidence in STEMI compared to NSTEMI [ 51 – 53 ]. CS is a life-threatening condition characterized by systemic hypoperfusion due to primary cardiac dysfunction and an inadequate cardiac output [ 54 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CS is a life-threatening condition characterized by systemic hypoperfusion due to primary cardiac dysfunction and an inadequate cardiac output [ 54 ]. Even in the current era, in-hospital mortality in patients with acute MI remains high at 40–60% when complicated by CS [ 51 – 53 ]. Emergency revascularization with PCI or CABG improves long-term survival in patients with acute MI and CS as shown in the SHOCK trial and is recommended in the guidelines [ 42 , 55 ].…”
In patients with ST segment elevation and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (MI), multivessel (MV) coronary artery disease is found in approximately 50%, leading to worse clinical outcomes. Recent data have suggested that complete revascularization with MV percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with a reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events as compared to culprit vessel-only revascularization. However, the optimal timing of MV intervention, appropriate non-culprit lesion assessment, and the best revascularization strategy in specific subsets such as cardiogenic shock remain to be established. This review article summarizes current evidence on revascularization strategies in patients with acute MI and MV disease.
“…In a setting of acute MI, 5–10% of patients present with CS, with higher incidence in STEMI compared to NSTEMI [ 51 – 53 ]. CS is a life-threatening condition characterized by systemic hypoperfusion due to primary cardiac dysfunction and an inadequate cardiac output [ 54 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CS is a life-threatening condition characterized by systemic hypoperfusion due to primary cardiac dysfunction and an inadequate cardiac output [ 54 ]. Even in the current era, in-hospital mortality in patients with acute MI remains high at 40–60% when complicated by CS [ 51 – 53 ]. Emergency revascularization with PCI or CABG improves long-term survival in patients with acute MI and CS as shown in the SHOCK trial and is recommended in the guidelines [ 42 , 55 ].…”
In patients with ST segment elevation and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (MI), multivessel (MV) coronary artery disease is found in approximately 50%, leading to worse clinical outcomes. Recent data have suggested that complete revascularization with MV percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with a reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events as compared to culprit vessel-only revascularization. However, the optimal timing of MV intervention, appropriate non-culprit lesion assessment, and the best revascularization strategy in specific subsets such as cardiogenic shock remain to be established. This review article summarizes current evidence on revascularization strategies in patients with acute MI and MV disease.
“…Some laboratory data potentially related to the outcomes including a lactate level and left ventricular ejection fraction were not available. 18 In the group with non‐AMI‐CS, detailed information in patients with other causes than myocarditis, nonischemic cardiomyopathy, ischemic cardiomyopathy, ventricular arrhythmia, and valvular heart disease was lacking. Because the Impella CP was predominantly used in this study population, analysis on other types of Impella may be underpowered.…”
Background
In patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is the most common cause, and a percutaneous microaxial ventricular assist device (Impella, Abiomed, Danvers, MA) is a choice for temporary mechanical circulatory support. However, data are limited on complications and outcomes of Impella treatment in patients with CS with and without AMI.
Methods and Results
Using nationwide prospective registry data in Japan, we included a total of 2047 patients with CS in whom the Impella devices were successfully placed between February 2020 and December 2021. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the primary indication for the Impella use: AMI versus non‐AMI. The primary end point was a composite of in‐hospital all‐cause death and major complications. Of the 2047 patients, the Impella was indicated for AMI in 1337 (65.3%). In the group without AMI, myocarditis was the leading cause of CS. Patients with AMI‐CS were older and more likely to have cardiovascular risk factors than those with non‐AMI‐CS. The rates of in‐hospital mortality (46.0% versus 43.9%,
P
=0.38) and major complications (35.2% versus 34.7%,
P
=0.85) were similar between the 2 groups. Overall, multivariable analysis identified older age, higher body mass index, previous transient ischemic attack or stroke, out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest, and the Impella 5.0 as factors significantly associated with the primary end point.
Conclusions
The use of Impella in patients with and without AMI was related to similar clinical outcomes with high mortality and complication rates. Further studies are needed to identify patients who may benefit from the Impella devices in CS.
Registration
URL:
https://www.umin.ac.jp/english
. Identifier: UMIN000033603.
“…This study was a retrospective, bi-center registry study at two tertiary referral hospitals, Chiba University Hospital and affiliated Eastern Chiba Medical Center [14][15][16][17][18][19] . Between January 2012 and March 2020, a total of 1102 patients with acute MI, including ST-segment elevation and non-ST-segment elevation MI, underwent primary PCI procedures at the two centers per local standard practice with a predominant use of radial access, intracoronary imaging, and contemporary drug-eluting stents [20][21][22][23][24] .…”
Aims: Several scoring systems, including the ABCD-GENE and HHD-GENE scores incorporating clinical and genetic factors, have been developed to identify patients likely to have high platelet reactivity on P2Y12 inhibitors, leading to increased risks of ischemic events. However, genetic testing is not widely available in daily practice. We aimed to evaluate the differential impact of clinical factors in the scores on ischemic outcomes in patients treated with clopidogrel and prasugrel.
Methods: This bi-center registry included 789 patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and treated with either clopidogrel or prasugrel at discharge. The relations of the number of clinical factors included in the ABCD-GENE (age ≥ 75 years, body mass index >30 kg/m 2 , chronic kidney disease, and diabetes) and HHD-GENE (hypertension, hemodialysis, and diabetes) scores to the primary endpoint of major cardiovascular events after discharge, a composite of death, recurrent MI, and ischemic stroke, were evaluated. Results: The number of clinical factors in the ABCD-GENE score was not predictive of ischemic outcomes after discharge in patients treated with clopidogrel and/or prasugrel, while the increase in the number of clinical factors of the HHD-GENE score was associated with an increased risk of the primary endpoint in a stepwise manner in patients on a P2Y12 inhibitor. Conclusions: Clinical factors listed in the HHD-GENE score may help stratify ischemic risks in patients with acute MI treated with clopidogrel and prasugrel, whereas risk stratification without genetic testing in patients treated with clopidogrel may be challenging.
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.