Therapie des akuten Myokardinfarkts — Primäre PTCA oder Thrombolyse?

Vogt, A.; Neuhaus, K. L.

doi:10.1007/bf03043927

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The clinical efficacy is strongly time-dependent, and treatment within the first hour of AMI improves survival rate by nearly 50% by preventing transmural infarction in a significant proportion of the patients. The disadvantage of thrombolysis is its limited efficacy in terms of rapid, complete and sustained patency of the infarct vessel which yield the optimal results to only 50% of the patients [10].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cerebral Infarction Caused by Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction a Case Report and Literature Review

Liu¹

2020

IJCCR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Thrombolytic therapy is one of the effective treatments for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The most common complication of thrombolytic therapy is hemorrhage. Thromboembolism caused by thrombolytic therapy is exceedingly rare in clinical practice. However, we report a case of cerebral infarction caused by thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Case Report: A 70-year-old man complained of burning sensation under the xiphoid process for 7 years and sudden chest pain for 3 hours. He was diagnosed with acute anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Thrombolytic therapy was carried out immediately, but the patient developed cerebral infarction 3 hours after thrombolysis. CONCLUSION: The common complication of thrombolytic therapy is cerebral hemorrhage or gastrointestinal hemorrhage, but the possibility of cerebral infarction should also be taken into account when patients have neurological symptoms.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cerebral Infarction Caused by Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction a Case Report and Literature Review

Liu¹

2020

IJCCR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the last few decades, the mortality rate for acute myocardial infarction has been significantly lowered through the further development of drug, interventional, and surgical therapies. Despite these therapeutic options, a low percentage of infarction patients (~7%) develop cardiogenic shock [Vogt 1999]. This patient group has an extremely poor prognosis and a hospital mortality rate of 60% to almost 100%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implantation of Cardio West Total Artificial Heart for Irreversible Acute Myocardial Infarction Shock

Morshuis¹,

Reiss²,

Arusoglu³

et al. 2007

The Heart Surgery Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients who develop cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction have a very high mortality rate despite early reperfusion therapy. Hemodynamic stabilization can often only be achieved by implanting a mechanical circulatory support system. When, in cases representing expansive myocardial impairment without any chance of recovery, pharmacological therapy and the use of percutaneous assist devices have failed, the implantation of a total artificial heart is indicated. We report our first experiences with this extensive and innovative method of managing irreversible cardiogenic shock patients. The CardioWest total artificial heart was implanted in 5 patients (male; mean age, 50 years). All patients were in irreversible cardiogenic shock despite maximum dosages of catecholamines, an intra-aortic balloon pump and/or a femoro-femoral bypass. In all patients early reperfusion therapy was performed. After implantation of the Cardio West system, all dysfunctional organ systems rapidly recovered in all patients. Four of 5 patients underwent successful heart transplantation after a mean support time of 156 days. One patient died because of enterocolic necroses caused by an embolic event after termination of dicumarol therapy. In summary, our first experiences justify this extensive management in young patients who would otherwise have died within a few hours.

show abstract

Reperfusionstherapie und mechanische Kreislauf-unterstützung bei Patienten mit kardiogenem Schock

Scholz

1999

Herz

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cardiogenic shock is a state of inadequate tissue perfusion due to cardiac dysfunction, which is most commonly caused by acute myocardial infarction. The pathophysiology of cardiogenic shock is characterized by a downward spiral: ischemia causes myocardial dysfunction, which, in turn, augments the ischemic damage and the energetical imbalance. With conservative therapy, mortality rates for patients with cardiogenic shock are frustratingly high reaching more than 80%. Additional thrombolytic therapy has not been shown to significantly improve survival in such patients. Emergency cardiac catheterization and coronary angioplasty, however, seem to improve the outcome in shock-patients, which most probably is due to rapid and complete revascularization generally reached by angioplasty. In addition to interventional therapy with rapid coronary revascularization, the use of mechanical circulatory support may interrupt the vicious cycle in cardiogenic shock by stabilizing hemodynamics and the metabolic situation. Different cardiac assist devices are available for cardiologists and cardiac surgeons: 1. intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP), 2. implantable turbine-pump (Hemopump), 3. percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass support (CPS), 4. right heart, left heart, or biventricular assist devices placed by thoracotomy, and 5. intra- and extrathoracic total artificial hearts. Since percutaneous application is possible with IABP, Hemopump and CPS, these devices are currently used in interventional cardiology. The basic goals of the less invasive intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP; Figure 1) are to stabilize circulatory collapse, to increase coronary perfusion and myocardial oxygen supply, and to decrease left ventricular workload and myocardial oxygen demand (Figure 2). Since the advent of percutaneous placement, IABP has been used by an increasing number of institutions (Figure 3). In addition to cardiogenic shock, the system may be of use in a variety of other indications in the catheterization laboratory and intensive care unit, including weaning from percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass, in ischaemic left ventricular failure, in unstable angina, in high risk PTCA, and in prophylactic support in patients with myocardial infarction and successful revascularization. Animal experimental data showed that IABP may improve success of thrombolysis and recent clinical data suggest that survival is enhanced and transfer for revascularization is facilitated when patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock undergo thrombolysis and IABP rather than thrombolysis alone. A lot of studies had demonstrated before, that combined use of counterpulsation and revascularization therapy (i.e. coronary bypass surgery or angioplasty) may improve prognosis in patients with myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (Table 1). In such patients, early treatment with IABP is most important: Multivariate analysis identified early IABP-support with a duration of shock to IABP-treatment of > or = 4 hours as an independ...

show abstract

Therapie des akuten Myokardinfarkts — Primäre PTCA oder Thrombolyse?

Cited by 5 publications

References 38 publications

Cerebral Infarction Caused by Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction a Case Report and Literature Review

Cerebral Infarction Caused by Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction a Case Report and Literature Review

Implantation of Cardio West Total Artificial Heart for Irreversible Acute Myocardial Infarction Shock

Reperfusionstherapie und mechanische Kreislauf-unterstützung bei Patienten mit kardiogenem Schock

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About