Clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction

Contemporary approach to cardiogenic shock care: a state-of-the-art review

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a time-sensitive and hemodynamically complex syndrome with a broad spectrum of etiologies and clinical presentations. Despite contemporary therapies, CS continues to maintain high morbidity and mortality ranging from 35 to 50%. More recently, burgeoning observational research in this field aimed at enhancing the early recognition and characterization of the shock state through standardized team-based protocols, comprehensive hemodynamic profiling, and tailored and selective utilization of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices has been associated with improved outcomes. In this narrative review, we discuss the pathophysiology of CS, novel phenotypes, evolving definitions and staging systems, currently available pharmacologic and device-based therapies, standardized, team-based management protocols, and regionalized systems-of-care aimed at improving shock outcomes. We also explore opportunities for fertile investigation through randomized and non-randomized studies to address the prevailing knowledge gaps that will be critical to improving long-term outcomes.

Advantages of DES over BMS in Preventing the Risk of Myocardial Infarction, Ischemic Stroke, and Mortality in Various Populations

Backgrounds: Previous studies have demonstrated that drug-eluting stents (DESs) are more effective than bare metal stents (BMSs) in reducing the risk of myocardial infarction in the short term, but the long-term preventive benefits for myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and mortality are not clear. Objective: This study deeply analyzed the long-term (within 3 years) advantages of the use of DESs in preventing the risk of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and mortality in various populations compared with those of using BMSs. Methods: This was a retrospective observational cohort study. We used the 2015-2019 claims data from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. Patients over the age of 18 who underwent coronary stent placement (both DESs and BMSs) for the first time in 2016 were included in the study population. Propensity-score matching was applied to increase the comparability of the DES and BMS groups. We used a Cox proportional hazard regression analysis to compare the effectiveness of DESs and BMSs in preventing myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and all-cause mortality. A subgroup analysis was also performed. Results: In total, 21,608 cases were included in this study. Overall, the risk of myocardial infarction (aHR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.78-0.85), ischemic stroke (aHR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.81-0.95), and mortality (aHR = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.57-0.65) in the DES group were significantly lower than those in the BMS group. However, in some special cases, the results were not statistically significant. In particular, in patients with obesity (aHR = 2.61; 95% CI: 1.20-5.69), the DES group appeared to have a significantly higher long-term intermediate ischemic risk than the BMS group. Conclusions and Relevance: In conclusion, although DESs were more effective than BMSs in reducing the risk of long-term myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and mortality, this study also found that, in some cases, the advantages of DESs over BMSs were not clearly observed.

Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock Interventional Approach to Management in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories

Despite advances in early reperfusion and a technologic renaissance in the space of Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS), Cardiogenic Shock (CS) remains the leading cause of in-hospital mortality following Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI). Given the challenges inherent to conducting adequately powered randomized controlled trials in this time-sensitive, hemodynamically complex, and highly lethal syndrome, treatment recommendations have been derived from AMI patients without shock. In this review, we aimed to (1) examine the pathophysiology and the new classification system for CS; (2) provide a comprehensive, evidence-based review for best practices for interventional management of AMI-CS in the cardiac catheterization laboratory; and (3) highlight the concept of how frailty and geriatric syndromes can be integrated into the decision process and where medical futility lies in the spectrum of AMI-CS care. Management strategies in the cardiac catheterization laboratory for CS include optimal vascular access, periprocedural antithrombotic therapy, culprit lesion versus multi-vessel revascularization, selective utilization of hemodynamic MCS tailored to individual shock hemometabolic profiles, and management of cardiac arrest. Efforts to advance clinical evidence for patients with CS should be concentrated on (1) the coordination of multi-center registries; (2) development of pragmatic clinical trials designed to evaluate innovative therapies; (3) establishment of multidisciplinary care models that will inform quality care and improve clinical outcomes.

Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents for first myocardial infarction in patients with atrial fibrillation: A nationwide population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicates the clinical management of atrial fibrillation (AF) because coronary stenting may influence subsequent antithrombotic therapy. We investigated the use of a bare-metal stent (BMS) or a drug-eluting stent (DES) and associated outcomes in patients with pre-existing AF and first AMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patient records in this population-based study were retrospectively collected from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Using propensity score matching (PSM), we used 1:2 ratio stratification into a DES group of 436 and a BMS group of 785 patients from 2007 to 2011. The mean follow-up of matched cohorts was 1.7 years. After PSM, DESs were associated with lower rates of cardiovascular death (7.8%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.86 and 10.1%, HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.90) and primary composite outcome (35.1%, HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63-0.92 and 48.2%, HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.96) than BMSs within the first year and at the end of follow-up. Although the greatest benefit from DESs, irrespective of the first- and second- generation DESs, implantation was observed within the first year only, this benefit was not observed in patients with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or dialysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of DESs in AMI patients with pre-existing AF is associated with significantly lower rates of cardiovascular death and primary composite outcome within the first year follow-up. However, the effect is not apparent in patients with diabetes, chronic kidney disease or dialysis.

Clinical outcomes of second-generation limus-eluting stents compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock

Objective

Whether the cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of second-generation limus-eluting stents (LESs) differ from those of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is still unclear.

Methods

We used the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database to analyse data of 516 patients with AMI and CS diagnosed from January 2007 to December 2011. We used propensity score matching to adjust for the imbalance in covariate baseline values between these two groups. We evaluated clinical outcomes by comparing 197 subjects who used second-generation LESs to 319 matched subjects who used PESs.

Results

The risk of the primary composite outcomes (i.e., myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation or CV death) was significantly lower in the second-generation LES group than in the PES group [37.3% vs. 51.8%; hazard ratio (HR), 0.73; 95% CI: 0.56–0.95] at the 12-month follow-up. The patients who received second-generation LESs had a lower risk of coronary revascularisation (HR 0.62; 95% CI: 0.41–0.93) than those who used PESs. However, the risks of myocardial infarction (HR 0.56; 95% CI: 0.26–1.24), ischemic stroke (HR 0.73; 95% CI: 0.23–2.35), or CV death (HR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.63–1.28) were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusions

Among patients with CS-complicating AMI, second-generation LES implantation significantly reduced the risk of coronary revascularisation and composite CV events compared to PES implantation at the 12-month follow-up.

ADVANCIS Score Predicts Acute Kidney Injury After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome

Acute kidney injury (AKI), a common and crucial complication of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) after receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), is associated with increased mortality and adverse outcomes. This study aimed to develop and validate a risk prediction model for incident AKI after PCI for ACS. We included 82,186 patients admitted for ACS and receiving PCI between 1997 and 2011 from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database and randomly divided them into a training cohort (n = 57,630) and validation cohort (n = 24,656) for risk model development and validation, respectively. Risk factor analysis revealed that age, diabetes mellitus, ventilator use, prior AKI, number of intervened vessels, chronic kidney disease (CKD), intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use, cardiogenic shock, female sex, prior stroke, peripheral arterial disease, hypertension, and heart failure were significant risk factors for incident AKI after PCI for ACS. The reduced model, ADVANCIS, comprised 8 clinical parameters (age, diabetes mellitus, ventilator use, prior AKI, number of intervened vessels, CKD, IABP use, cardiogenic shock), with a score scale ranging from 0 to 22, and performed comparably with the full model (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 87.4% vs 87.9%). An ADVANCIS score of ≥6 was associated with higher in-hospital mortality risk. In conclusion, the ADVANCIS score is a novel, simple, robust tool for predicting the risk of incident AKI after PCI for ACS, and it can aid in risk stratification to monitor patient care.

Predictors of subsequent myocardial infarction, stroke, and death in stable post-myocardial infarction patients: A nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the predictors of subsequent cardiovascular events in stable post-myocardial infarction patients in Taiwan.

METHODS

A total of 11,183 patients were recruited who had survived one year post-myocardial infarction without subsequent events of recurrent myocardial infarction or stroke from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Their composite cardiovascular event rates were identified.

RESULTS

The composite cardiovascular events rate in three year follow-up in the post-myocardial infarction population was 13.8%. Corresponding event rates were 5.8% recurrent myocardial infarction, 5.0% stroke, and 5.2% death. Independent factors associated with a higher risk of ischemic events or death included heart failure (hazard ratio (HR)=1.19), hypertension (HR=1.16), age (65-75 vs <65 years: HR=1.29; 75-85 vs <65 years: HR=1.50; >85 vs <65 years: HR=1.70), diabetes (HR=1.33), prior stroke (HR=1.24), chronic kidney disease (HR=1.4), atrial fibrillation (HR=1.27), and underutilization of guideline-based medication (HR=1.73). Composite risk for myocardial infarction, stroke and death increased progressively from 4.9% in patients with zero risk factor to 100.0% in patients with eight risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

For acute myocardial infarction patients surviving one year without subsequent events of recurrent myocardial infarction or stroke, the risk of cardiovascular events remained high. Eight predictors identified patients at increased risk for subsequent cardiovascular events within the next three years. These results suggest an unmet need, particularly in patients with additional risk factors.

Acute kidney injury in patients with pulmonary embolism: A population-based cohort study

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is overlooked in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE). Risk factors for and long-term outcomes of this complication remain unknown. This study evaluated the predictors and prognosis of AKI in patients with PE.This retrospective cohort study used Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. We enrolled a total of 7588 patients who were admitted to a hospital for PE from January1997 to December 2011 and administered anticoagulation or thrombolytic agents. All demographic data, risk factors, and outcomes were analyzed.AKI was diagnosed in 372 (4.9%) patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed pre-existing chronic kidney disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, massive PE, anemia, and sepsis as independent risk factors for AKI. In the long-term follow-up, the survival rate was similar in the AKI and non-AKI groups.Careful risk factor screening and intensive intervention in patients with AKI might yield outcomes similar to those in patients without AKI.

Benefits of Intraaortic Balloon Support for Myocardial Infarction Patients in Severe Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Coronary Revascularization

Background

Prior studies have suggested intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) have a neutral effect on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). However, the effects of IABP on patients with severe CS remain unclear. We therefore investigated the benefits of IABP in AMI patients with severe CS undergoing coronary revascularization.

Methods and Results

This study identified 14,088 adult patients with AMI and severe CS undergoing coronary revascularization from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2011, dividing them into the IABP group (n = 7044) and the Nonusers group (n = 7044) after propensity score matching to equalize confounding variables. The primary outcomes included myocardial infarction(MI), cerebrovascular accidents or cardiovascular death. In-hospital events including dialysis, stroke, pneumonia and sepsis were secondary outcomes. Primary outcomes were worse in the IABP group than in the Nonusers group in 1 month (Hazard ratio (HR) = 1.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.84–2.12). The MI rate was higher in the IABP group (HR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.16–1.79), and the cardiovascular death was much higher in the IABP group (HR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.92–2.23). The IABP users had lower incidence of dialysis (8.5% and 9.5%, P = 0.04), stroke (2.6% and 3.8%, P<0.001), pneumonia (13.9% and 16.5%, P<0.001) and sepsis (13.2% and 16%, P<0.001) during hospitalization than Nonusers.

Conclusion

The use of IABP in patients with myocardial infarction and severe cardiogenic shock undergoing coronary revascularization did not improve the outcomes of recurrent myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death. However, it did reduce the incidence of dialysis, stroke, pneumonia and sepsis during hospitalization.