Management of cardiogenic shock: a narrative review

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is characterized by low cardiac output and sustained tissue hypoperfusion that may result in end-organ dysfunction and death. CS is associated with high short-term mortality, and its management remains challenging despite recent advances in therapeutic options. Timely diagnosis and multidisciplinary team-based management have demonstrated favourable effects on outcomes. We aimed to review evidence-based practices for managing patients with ischemic and non-ischemic CS, detailing the multi-organ supports needed in this critically ill patient population.

Updated Strategies in Non-Culprit Stenosis Management of Multivessel Coronary Disease-A Contemporary Review

The prevalence of multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients underscores the need for optimal revascularization strategies. The ongoing debate surrounding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), hybrid interventions, or medical-only management adds complexity to decision-making, particularly in specific angiographic scenarios. The article critically reviews existing literature, providing evidence-based perspectives on non-culprit lesion revascularization in ACS. Emphasis is placed on nuances such as the selection of revascularization methods, optimal timing for interventions, and the importance of achieving completeness in revascularization. The debate between culprit-only revascularization and complete revascularization is explored in detail, focusing on ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), including patients with cardiogenic shock. Myocardial revascularization guidelines and recent clinical trials support complete revascularization strategies, either during the index primary PCI or within a short timeframe following the culprit lesion PCI (in both STEMI and NSTEMI). The article also addresses the complexities of decision-making in NSTEMI patients with multivessel CAD, advocating for immediate multivessel PCI unless complex coronary lesions require a staged revascularization approach. Finally, the article provided contemporary data on chronic total occlusion revascularization in ACS patients, highlighting the prognostic impact. In conclusion, the article addresses the evolving challenges of managing multivessel CAD in ACS patients, enhancing thoughtful integration into the clinical practice of recent data. We provided evidence-based, individualized approaches to optimize short- and long-term outcomes. The ongoing refinement of clinical and interventional strategies for non-culprit lesion management remains dynamic, necessitating careful consideration of patient characteristics, coronary stenosis complexity, and clinical context.

The value of cardiac magnetic resonance post-contrast T1 mapping in improving the evaluation of myocardial infarction

Objective

To explore the additional value of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) post-contrast T1 mapping in the detection of myocardial infarction, compared with late gadolinium enhancement (LGE).

Materials and methods

A CMR database of consecutive patients with myocardial infarction was retrospectively analyzed. All patients were scanned at 3 T magnetic resonance; they underwent conventional CMR (including LGE) and post-contrast T1 mapping imaging. Two radiologists interpreted the CMR images using a 16-segment model. The first interpretation included only LGE images. After 30 days, the same radiologists performed a second analysis of random LGE images, with the addition of post-contrast T1 mapping images. Images were analyzed to diagnose myocardial scars, and the transmural extent of each scar was visually evaluated. Diagnoses retained after LGE were compared with diagnoses retained after the addition of post-contrast T1 mapping.

Results

In total, 80 patients (1,280 myocardial segments) were included in the final analysis. After the addition of post-contrast T1 mapping, eight previously unidentified subendocardial scars were detected. Compared with LGE images, the percentage of infarcted segments was higher after the addition of post-contrast T1 mapping images (21.7% vs. 22.3%, P = 0.008), the percentage of uncertain segments was lower after the addition of post-contrast T1 mapping (0.8% vs. 0.1%, P = 0.004), and the percentage of uncertain transmural extent of scarring was lower after the addition of post-contrast T1 mapping (0.9% vs. 0.1%, P = 0.001).

Conclusion

The addition of post-contrast T1 mapping after LGE helps to improve the detection of myocardial infarction, as well as the assessment of the transmural extent of scarring.

Immediate versus staged revascularisation of non-culprit arteries in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Although there is robust evidence that revascularisation of non-culprit vessels should be pursued in patients presenting with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD), the optimal timing of complete revascularisation remains disputed. In this systematic review and meta-analysis our results suggest that outcomes are comparable for immediate and staged complete revascularisation in patients with ACS and MVD. However, evidence from randomised controlled trials remains scarce and cautious interpretation of these results is recommended. More non-biased evidence is necessary to aid future decision making on the optimal timing of complete revascularisation.

Multivessel vs. Culprit Vessel-Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicating by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains controversial. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) compared to culprit vessel-only PCI (CO-PCI) for the treatment, only in patients with STEMI with CS.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted. Studies assessed the efficacy outcomes of short (in-hospital or 30 days)/long-term mortality, cardiac death, myocardial reinfarction, repeat revascularization, and safety outcomes of stroke, bleeding, acute renal failure with MV-PCI vs. CO-PCI in patients with STEMI with CS were included. The publication bias and sensitivity analysis were also performed.

Results

A total of 15 studies were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in short- and long-term mortality in patients treated with MV-PCI compared to CO-PCI group [odds ratio (OR) = 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.92–1.48; OR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58–1.28]. Similarly, there were no significant differences in cardiac death (OR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.44–1.00), myocardial reinfarction (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.77–2.00), repeat revascularization (OR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.40–1.42), bleeding (OR = 1.53; 95% CI, 0.53–4.43), or stroke (OR = 1.42; 95% CI, 0.90–2.23) between the two groups. There was a higher risk in acute renal failure (OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04–1.69) in patients treated with MV-PCI when compared with CO-PCI.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggests that there may be no significant benefit for patients with STEMI complicating CS treated with MV-PCI compared with CO-PCI, and patients are at increased risk of developing acute renal failure after MV-PCI intervention.

The Use of Mechanical Circulatory Assist Devices for ACS Patients with Cardiogenic Shock and High-Risk PCI

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There has been a significant expansion of the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices for patient with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) with cardiogenic shock (CS) and in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous interventions (PCI). The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the indications and outcomes of these devices in high-risk cardiac patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Early revascularization of the culprit-lesion is the immediate goal in ACS patients with CS and the use of pulmonary artery catheters has been associated with improved outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock. The MCS devices that are used for myocardial support include the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), the left ventricle (LV) to aorta pumps, left atrium (LA) to arterial pumps, and right atrial (RA) to arterial pumps. This review provides an overview on the use of these devices in patients with ACS and CS and those undergoing high-risk PCI. Attention is focused on the IABP, the Impella (LV-aorta pump), the TandemHeart (LA-arterial pump), and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (RA-arterial pump). The indications, evidence, and complications of each device are reviewed. Each device varies in its physiological effect on native heart function, complexity in insertion, and complications. The use of MCS devices for high-risk PCI and CS has increased in recent years and have demonstrated efficacy in supporting a vulnerable myocardium. Although recommendations can be made for use of each device in certain clinical scenarios, further evidence through registries and clinical trials is necessary to guide appropriate device utilization.

ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Sex Differences in Incidence, Etiology, Treatment, and Outcomes

PURPOSE

Although there have been marked improvements in the standard of care for treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, women, especially younger women, continue to have significantly worse outcomes than men.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review highlights the current sex differences in presentation, etiology, treatment, and outcomes among these patients in order to make providers aware of the heterogeneous entities that cause ST-elevation myocardial infarction particularly in women and of disparities in treatment that lead to poorer outcomes in women. Furthermore, it emphasizes evidence-based strategies including standardized protocols for early revascularization, mechanical circulatory support, and access methodology that can reduce sex-based disparities in treatments and outcomes.

Shexiang Baoxin Pill for Acute Myocardial Infarction: Clinical Evidence and Molecular Mechanism of Antioxidative Stress

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been a preclinical and clinical concern due to high hospitalization rate and mortality. This study was aimed at evaluating the effectiveness and safety of Shexiang Baoxin Pill (SBP) for AMI and exploring the possible mechanism of oxidative stress. Six databases were searched on March 26, 2021. Twenty-four studies were included and accessed by the RoB 2.0 or SYRCLE tool. Compared with routine treatment (RT), SBP showed the effectiveness in the clinical efficacy (RR = 1.15, 95% CI [1.06, 1.25]), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (SMD = 0.73, 95% CI [0.62, 0.95]), glutathione (GSH) (SMD = 2.07, 95% CI [1.51, 2.64]), superoxide dismutase (SOD) (SMD = 0.92, 95% CI [0.58, 1.26]), malondialdehyde (MDA) (SMD = -4.23, 95% CI [-5.80, -2.66]), creatine kinase-myocardial band (CK-MB) (SMD = -4.98, 95% CI [-5.64, -4.33]), cardiac troponin I (cTnI) (SMD = -2.17, 95% CI [-2.57, -1.76]), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP) (SMD = -1.34, 95% CI [-1.56, -1.12]), interleukin-6 (IL-6) (SMD = -0.99, 95% CI [-1.26, -0.71]), triglycerides (TG) (SMD = -0.52, 95% CI [-0.83, -0.22]), flow-mediated dilation (FMD) (SMD = 1.39, 95% CI [1.06, 1.72]), von Willebrand Factor (vWF) (SMD = -1.77, 95% CI [-2.39, -1.15]), nitric oxide (NO) (SMD = 0.89, 95% CI [0.65, 1.13]), and recurrent rate (RR = 0.30, 95% CI [0.15, 0.59]). But SBP adjunctive to RT plus PCI had no improvements in almost pooled outcomes except for the Hs-CRP (SMD = -1.19, 95% CI [-1.44, -0.94]) and TG (SMD = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.48, -0.02]). Laboratory findings showed that SBP enhanced the endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) activity and regulated laboratory indexes especially for homocysteine. In conclusion, SBP has adjunctive effects on AMI via the mechanism of antioxidative stress. The current evidence supports the use of SBP for mild and moderate AMI patients.

Acute kidney injury in cardiogenic shock: A comprehensive review

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is an ominous predictor of mortality in cardiogenic shock. The present review examines the pathophysiology of AKI in cardiogenic shock (CS), summarizes the pertinent literature including the diagnostic criteria/definitions for AKI and possible role of biomarkers, and identifies risk factors and possible therapeutic interventions for AKI in CS. Our review finds that AKI is common in patients with CS and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Urinary biomarkers of renal tubular injury appear more sensitive for detection of AKI but have yet to be incorporated into daily practice. Emerging data would suggest vasopressor choices, mechanical circulatory support, and renal replacement therapy may have important therapeutic roles in the management of CS.

Completeness of revascularisation in acute coronary syndrome patients with multivessel disease

A significant proportion of patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have multivessel disease (MVD). Despite the abundance of clinical trials in this area, several questions regarding the procedure of complete coronary revascularisation remain unanswered. This state-of-the-art review summarises the latest evidence on complete revascularisation (CR) in this subset of patients and critically appraises clinical decision making based on non-culprit lesion (NCL) assessment. Future areas of research are put into perspective.

The effect of complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with Killip class ≥ III

BACKGROUND

The effect of complete revascularization (CR) on high-risk patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has remains a controversial issue, especially on patients in a critical condition. The aim of this study was to explore the effect of CR on patients with STEMI with Killip class ≥ III.

METHODS

From January 2008 to December 2014, 185 patients diagnosed with STEMI with Killip class ≥ III and multiple vessel coronary artery disease received primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Eighty-nine patients underwent culprit-only PCI, and the remaining 96 patients underwent immediate or staged PCI for CR. Out of the 96 patients in the CR group, 51 patients underwent immediate CR, and 45 patients underwent CR during the same hospitalization. Thirty-day and 1-year clinical outcomes were compared between the culprit-only PCI group and the CR group as well as between the immediate CR group and staged CR group.

RESULTS

There was a trend toward a lower incidence of post-PCI acute kidney injury in the culprit-only PCI group when compared with the CR group (14.8% vs. 26.0%; P = 0.069). Thirty-day and 1-year cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality were similar between the culprit-only PCI group and CR group. Decreased 1-year cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality were noted in the staged CR group compared with the immediate CR group.

CONCLUSION

was associated a higher possibility of post-PCI acute kidney injury and did not seem to improve 30-day or 1-year clinical outcomes. Patients undergoing staged CR during the same hospitalization had better clinical outcomes.

Revascularization Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock: Results from the Portuguese Registry on Acute Coronary Syndromes

Fundamento:

Em doentes com infarto agudo do miocárdio (IAM), choque cardiogênico (CC) e doença multivaso (DMV) persistem dúvidas sobre a intervenção nas artérias não responsáveis.

Objetivos:

1) caracterizar a amostra de doentes com IAM, CC e DMV incluídos no Registo Nacional Português de Síndromes Coronárias Agudas (RNSCA); 2) comparar os eventos associados a diferentes estratégias de revascularização; e 3) identificar preditores de mortalidade intra-hospitalar nesta amostra.

Métodos:

Estudo observacional retrospetivo de doentes com IAM, CC e DMV incluídos no RNSCA entre 2010 e 2018. Compararam-se duas estratégias de revascularização: completa durante o procedimento índice (grupo 1); e completa diferida ou incompleta durante o internamento (grupo 2-3). O endpoint primário foi a ocorrência de reinfarto ou morte intra-hospitalar. A significância estatística foi definida por um valor p < 0,05.

Resultados:

Identificaram-se 127 doentes com IAM, CC e DMV (18,1% no grupo 1 e 81,9% no grupo 2-3), com idade média de 70 ± 12 anos e 92,9% com IAM com supradesnivelamento do segmento ST. O endpoint primário ocorreu em 47,8% dos doentes do grupo 1 e em 37,5% do grupo 2-3 (p = 0,359). As taxas de mortalidade intra-hospitalar, reinfarto, acidente vascular cerebral e hemorragia major foram também semelhantes nos dois grupos. Os preditores de mortalidade intra-hospitalar nesta amostra foram a presença na admissão de disfunção ventricular esquerda (OR 16,8), bloqueio completo de ramo direito (OR 7,6) e anemia (OR 5,2), (p ≤ 0,02).

Conclusões:

Entre os doentes com IAM, CC e DMV, incluídos no RNSCA, não se verificou diferença significativa entre revascularização completa no evento índex e completa diferida ou incompleta durante o internamento, relativamente à ocorrência de morte intra-hospitalar ou reinfarto. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2021; 116(5):867-876)

Multivessel Versus Culprit-Vessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare in-hospital outcomes and long-term mortality of multivessel versus culprit vessel-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), multivessel disease (MVD) and cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefits of complete revascularization in patients with NSTEMI, MVD, and cardiogenic shock remain uncertain.

METHODS

Among 25,324 patients included in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry from July 2009 to March 2018, the rates of in-hospital procedural outcomes were compared between those undergoing multivessel PCI and those undergoing culprit vessel-only PCI after 1:1 propensity score matching. Among patients aged ≥65 years matched to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services database, long-term mortality was compared using proportional hazards analysis.

RESULTS

Multivessel PCI was performed in 9,791 patients (38.7%), which increased from 32.2% in 2010 to 44.2% in 2017 (p for trend <0.001). After 1:1 propensity matching (n = 7,864 in each group), those undergoing multivessel PCI had a 3.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0% to 5.0%) lower absolute rate of in-hospital mortality (30.9% vs. 34.4%; p < 0.001; odds ratio [OR]: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.91), but a higher risk for bleeding (13.2% vs. 10.8%; p < 0.001; OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.40) and new requirement for dialysis (5.7% vs. 4.6%; p = 0.001; OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.46). Among those surviving to discharge, all-cause mortality was similar through 7 years (conditional hazard ratio: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.03; p = 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 40% of patients with NSTEMI with MVD and cardiogenic shock underwent multivessel PCI, which was associated with lower in-hospital mortality but greater peri-procedural complications. Among those surviving to discharge, multivessel PCI did not confer additional long-term mortality benefit.

Multivessel Intervention in Myocardial Infarction with Cardiogenic Shock: CULPRIT-SHOCK Trial Outcomes in the PL-ACS Registry

Background: The aim of the study was a comparison of culprit-lesion-only (CL-PCI) with the multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) in terms of 30-day and 12-month mortality in a national registry. Methods: Patients from the PL-ACS registry with MI and CS were analyzed. Patients meeting the criteria of the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial were divided into two groups: CL-PCI and MV-PCI groups. Results: Of the 3265 patients in the PL-ACS registry with MI complicated by CS, the criteria of the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial were met by 2084 patients (63.8%). The CL-PCI was performed in 883 patients, and MV-PCI was performed in 1045 patients. After the propensity score matching analysis, 617 well-matched pairs were obtained. In a 30-day follow-up, death from any cause occurred in 49.3% in the CL-PCI group and 57.0% in the MV-PCI group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58–0.92, p = 0.0081). After 12 months, the rate of mortality was 62.5% in the CL-PCI group and 68.0% in the MV-PCI group (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84–1.01, p = 0.066). Conclusions: The results confirm the validity of CULPRIT-SHOCK findings in a national registry and current guideline-recommended strategy of revascularization limited to the infarct-related artery.

Invasive Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the most common cause of mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The SHOCK trial (Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock) demonstrated a survival benefit with early revascularization in patients with CS complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMICS) 20 years ago. After an initial improvement in mortality related to revascularization, mortality rates have plateaued. A recent Society of Coronary Angiography and Interventions classification scheme was developed to address the wide range of CS presentations. In addition, a recent scientific statement from the American Heart Association recommended the development of CS centers using standardized protocols for diagnosis and management of CS, including mechanical circulatory support devices (MCS). A number of CS programs have implemented various protocols for treating patients with AMICS, including the use of MCS, and have published promising results using such protocols. Despite this, practice patterns in the cardiac catheterization laboratory vary across health systems, and there are inconsistencies in the use or timing of MCS for AMICS. Furthermore, mortality benefit from MCS devices in AMICS has yet to be established in randomized clinical trials. In this article, we outline the best practices for the contemporary interventional management of AMICS, including coronary revascularization, the use of MCS, and special considerations such as the treatment of patients with AMICS with cardiac arrest.

Management of Culprit and Non-Culprit Lesions in Acute Coronary Syndrome

Multivessel coronary artery disease, defined by the presence of a significant stenosis (≥50% diameter) in two or more epicardial coronary vessels, usually occurs in more than 50% of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The latest guidelines indicate revascularization of the non-culprit artery with a recommendation of class IIB. However, the management of non-culprit lesions in patients with acute coronary syndrome is still a matter of debate. This article presents the most recent concepts related to the management of culprit and non-culprit coronary lesions, based on advanced imaging approaches, in order to identify high-risk patients and prevent further acute coronary syndromes.

Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in High-Risk Settings

Despite the widespread adoption of primary percutaneous intervention and modern antithrombotic therapy, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains the leading cause of death in the United States and remains one of the most important causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Certain high-risk patients present a challenge for diagnosis and treatment. The widespread adoption of primary percutaneous intervention in addition to modern antithrombotic therapy has resulted in substantial improvement in the short- and long-term prognosis following STEMI. In this review, we aim to provide a brief analysis of the state-of-the-art treatment for patients presenting with STEMI, focusing on cardiogenic shock, current treatment and controversies, cardiac arrest, and diagnosis and treatment of mechanical complications, as well as multivessel and left main-related STEMI.

Economic evaluation of culprit lesion only PCI vs. immediate multivessel PCI in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial

BACKGROUND

The CULPRIT-SHOCK trial compared two treatment strategies for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock: (a) culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention (CO-PCI), with additional staged revascularisation if indicated, and (b) immediate multivessel PCI (MV-PCI).

METHODS

A German societal and national health service perspective was considered for three different analyses. The cost utility analysis (CUA) estimated costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) based on a pre-trial decision analytic model taking a lifelong time horizon. In addition, a within trial CUA estimated QALYs and costs for 1 year. Finally, the cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) used the composite primary outcome, mortality and renal failure at 30-day follow-up, and the within trial costs. Econometric and survival analysis on the trial data was used for the estimation of the model parameters. Subgroup analysis was performed following an economic protocol.

RESULTS

The lifelong CUA showed an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER), CO-PCI vs. MV-PCI, of €7010 per QALY and a probability of CO-PCI being the most cost-effective strategy > 64% at a €30,000 threshold. The ICER for the within trial CUA was €14,600 and the incremental cost per case of death/renal failure avoided at 30-day follow-up was €9010. Cost-effectiveness improved with patient age and for those without diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

The estimates of cost-effectiveness for CO-PCI vs. MV-PCI have been shown to change depending on the time horizon and type of economic evaluation performed. The results favoured a long-term horizon analysis for avoiding underestimation of QALY gains from the CO-PCI arm.

Long-Term Mortality Comparison of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock and Treated With Culprit-Only or Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine whether, in a real word context of patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI), multivessel disease (MVD) and cardiogenic shock (CS), the successful treatment with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (p-PCI) of only culprit lesions (OC-PCI) is associated with better long-term mortality rates than multivessel PCI (MV-PCI) of all significant lesions.

METHODS

From our registry of all consecutive patients admitted for AMI between January 1995 and December 2016 we selected those presenting with CS and MVD successfully treated with p-PCI, and compared those who underwent OC-PCI against MV-PCI, either during the p-PCI (MV-pPCI) or by staged revascularization (Staged-PCI) during hospitalization. The primary endpoint was 2-year all-cause death.

RESULTS

Among 4210 patients with AMI, 406 (9.6%) presented CS (Killip class IV). A total of 292 patients had MVD. Of them, 252 (86.3%) were successfully treated with p-PCI, 159 patients with OC-PCI and 93 with MV-PCI, either in the same (n = 29) or staged procedure (n = 64). At 2-year follow-up the overall mortality was 47.6%, lower in MV-PCI group (37.6% vs 53.5% in OC-PCI, p = 0.019). Diabetes (HR = 1.50, 1.01-2.22), three vessel disease (HR = 1.49, 1.02-2.17) and basal left ventricular ejection fraction <15% (HR = 3.39, 2.41-6.27) were independent predictors of mortality, while MV-PCI was the only variable associated with improved survival (HR = 0.54, 0.36-0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real world registry of AMI patients with MVD presenting CS, MV-PCI was associated with better long-term survival.

Utility and Challenges of an Early Invasive Strategy in Patients Resuscitated From Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is frequently triggered by acute myocardial ischemia. Coronary angiography is an important component of post-resuscitation care for patients with OHCA without an evident noncardiac cause, to identify underlying coronary artery disease and allow revascularization. Most patients undergoing coronary angiography after OHCA have obstructive coronary artery disease, and nearly one-half of patients have acute coronary occlusion. Early coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention after OHCA have been associated with improved survival in observational studies, but these studies demonstrate selection bias, and randomized trials are lacking. Selection of patients for coronary angiography after OHCA can be challenging, particularly in comatose patients whose outcomes are driven primarily by anoxic brain injury. As for other patients with acute coronary syndromes, patients with ST-segment elevation after OHCA have a high probability of acute coronary occlusion warranting emergent coronary angiography. Patients with cardiogenic shock after OHCA are a high-risk population also requiring emergent coronary angiography. Among patients in stable condition after OHCA without ST-segment elevation, other clinical predictors can be used to identify those needing early coronary angiography to identify obstructive coronary artery disease. Despite the challenges with early neurological prognostication in comatose patients with OHCA, those with multiple objective markers of poor prognosis appear less likely to benefit from revascularization, and early coronary angiography may be reasonably deferred in appropriately selected patients meeting these criteria. The authors propose an algorithm to guide patient selection for coronary angiography after OHCA that combines clinical predictors of acute coronary occlusion and early clinical predictors of severe brain injury.

Prognostic importance of culprit lesion location in cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

As existing results are diverging, and the patient population has changed significantly, this study sought to investigate the prognostic importance of the culprit lesion location in patients with cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction (AMICS), in a contemporary and unselected patient population.

METHODS

From the recruitment area of two tertiary heart centres in Denmark, covering 3.9 million citizens corresponding to two-thirds of the Danish population, all AMICS patients in the period of 2010-2017 were individually identified and validated through patient records.

RESULTS

A total of 1716 patients with AMICS were identified. Immediate revascularization was performed in 1482 patients (86%). Among these, a culprit lesion in the left main coronary artery (LM) was associated with the highest 30-day mortality rate (66%), plogrank<0.0001, which persisted after multivariable adjustment for variables known to be associated with mortality in AMICS, including age, gender, heart rate, lactate, diabetes, stroke and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, p=0.002. A culprit lesion in the remaining coronary arteries had comparable and lower 30-day mortality (43-48%), plogrank=0.39. Patients with multivessel disease had comparable prognoses irrespective of whether a culprit-only or multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention strategy was used (plogrank=0.80), and whether partial or complete revascularization was achieved (plogrank=0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Among AMICS patients undergoing revascularization, a LM culprit lesion was associated with the highest short-term mortality, whereas patients with a culprit lesion in the remaining coronary arteries had comparable and lower mortality rates. Multivessel disease patients had similar prognoses irrespective of percutaneous coronary intervention approach and whether partial or complete revascularization was achieved.

New insights into cardiogenic shock and coronary revascularization after acute myocardial infarction

Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction is challenging, and continues to be associated with high rates of in-hospital and long-term mortality. Coronary revascularization is critical for improving prognosis in CS. Thus, a systematic protocol-driven approach to cardiogenic shock, the development of specialized cardiac care centres, technical advances in interventional cardiology enabling treatment of more complex and severe lesions, the availability of recent antithrombotic therapies and the evolution of new haemodynamic support devices are important considerations in current management of cardiogenic shock complicating acute ischaemic heart disease. Despite these potentially meaningful developments, several substantial gaps in knowledge still exist regarding optimal coronary revascularization of patients with cardiogenic shock. This review will describe current principles in the revascularization of these patients, with a focus on: the time to transfer and revascularize; the choice of vascular access site; the need for complete revascularization or only a culprit lesion strategy; the optimal antithrombotic therapy; the type, place and timing of haemodynamic support; and the medical care system network.

One-Year Clinical Outcomes between Single- versus Multi-Staged PCI for ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction with Multi-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease: from Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health (KAMIR-NIH)

Background and Objectives

Although complete revascularization is known superior to incomplete revascularization in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (MVCD), there are no definite instructions on the optimal timing of non-culprit lesions percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared 1-year clinical outcomes between 2 different complete multi-vessel revascularization strategies.

Methods

From the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health, 606 patients with STEMI and MVCD who underwent complete revascularization were enrolled from November 2011 to December 2015. The patients were assigned to multi-vessel single-staged PCI (SS PCI) group (n=254) or multi-vessel multi-staged PCI (MS PCI) group (n=352). Propensity score matched 1-year clinical outcomes were compared between the groups.

Results

At one year, MS PCI showed a significantly lower rate of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% confidential interval [CI], 0.19–0.92; p=0.030) compared with SS PCI. In subgroup analysis, all-cause mortality increased in SS PCI with cardiogenic shock (HR, 4.60; 95% CI, 1.54–13.77; p=0.006), age ≥65 years (HR, 4.00; 95% CI, 1.67–9.58, p=0.002), Killip class III/IV (HR, 7.32; 95% CI, 1.68–31.87; p=0.008), and creatinine clearance ≤60 mL/min (HR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.10–7.18; p=0.031). After propensity score-matching, MS PCI showed a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular event than SS PCI.

Conclusions

SS PCI was associated with worse clinical outcomes compared with MS PCI. MS PCI for non-infarct-related artery could be a better option for patients with STEMI and MVCD, especially high-risk patients.

Association Between Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease and Return of Spontaneous Circulation Interval in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is the major cause of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The relationship between the findings from the study of coronary images and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) interval is still unknown. Hence, we investigated this relationship in ACS patients with OHCA.A cohort of 2779 patients was admitted to our emergency center due to cardiopulmonary arrest (CPA) between April 2011 and March 2015. We included ACS patients who had CPA with ventricular fibrillation (VF) as an initial rhythm, were successfully resuscitated, underwent coronary angiography (CAG), had a culprit lesion, and were diagnosed with ACS (n = 58; age, 63.7 ± 12.0 years; 93.1% male).We divided the 58 patients into two groups, an early ROSC group (ROSC ≤ 20 minutes: E-ROSC) and a late ROSC group (ROSC > 20 minutes: L-ROSC), and then analyzed their characteristics.The finding of a collateral artery for the culprit lesion location, Rentrop II-III, and TIMI III flow on CAG on arrival presented no significant differences between the two groups (Rentrop II-III: 25.0% versus 23.5%, P = 0.90; TIMI III: 33.3% versus 35.3%, P = 0.88). The incidence of multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) was lower in the E-ROSC group than in the L-ROSC group (16.7% versus 58.8%, P = 0.001).Collateral and TIMI flow were not associated with ease of resuscitation, but MVD may have a negative impact on resuscitation, especially in VF patients.

Complete Versus Culprit only Revascularisation in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction: Incidence and Outcomes from the London Heart Attack Group

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in technology, patients with Cardiogenic Shock (CS) presenting with ST-segment myocardial infarction (STEMI) still have a poor prognosis with high mortality rates. A large proportion of these patients have multi-vessel coronary artery disease, the treatment of which is still unclear. We aimed to assess the trends in management of CS patients with multi-vessel disease (MVD), particularly looking at the incidence and outcomes of complete revascularisation compared to culprit vessel only.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We undertook an observational cohort study of 21,210 STEMI patients treated between 2005 and 2015 at the 8 Heart Attack Centres in London, UK. Patients' details were recorded prospectively into local databases using the British Cardiac Intervention Society (BCIS) PCI dataset. 1058 patients presented with CS and MVD. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Patients were followed-up for a median of 4.1 years (IQR range: 2.2-5.8 years). 497 (47.0%) patients underwent complete revascularisation during primary PCI for CS with stable rates seen over time. These patients were more likely to be male, hypertensive and more likely to have poor LV function compared to the culprit vessel intervention group. Although crude, in hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rates were similar (40.8% vs. 36.0%, p = 0.558) between the two groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated no significant differences in mortality rates between the two groups (53.8% complete revascularisation vs. 46.8% culprit vessel intervention, p = 0.252) during the follow-up period. After multivariate cox analysis (HR 0.69 95% CI (0.44-0.98)) and the use of propensity matching (HR: 0.81 95% CI: 0.62-0.97) complete revascularisation was associated with reduced mortality. A number of co-variates were included in the model, including age, gender, diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, previous PCI, previous MI, chronic renal failure, Anterior infarct, number of treated vessels, pre-procedure TIMI flow, procedural success and GP IIb/IIIA use.

CONCLUSION

In a contemporary observational series of CS patients with MVD, complete revascularisation appears to be associated with better outcomes compared to culprit vessel only intervention. This supports on-going clinical trials in this area and provides further evidence of the association of complete revascularisation in STEMI with good outcomes.

Therapeutic Advances in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening state of tissue hypoperfusion, associated with a very high risk of mortality, despite intensive monitoring and modern treatment modalities. The present review aimed at describing the therapeutic advances in the management of CS.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

Many uncertainties about CS management remain in clinical practice, and these relate to the intensity of invasive monitoring, the type and timing of vasoactive therapies, the risk-benefit ratio of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) therapy, and optimal ventilation mode. Furthermore, most of the data are obtained from CS in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), although for non-AMI-CS patients, there are very few evidences for etiological or MCS therapies.

DATA SOURCES

The prospective multicentric acute heart failure registries that specifically presented characteristics of patients with CS, distinct to other phenotypes, were included in the present review. Relevant clinical trials investigating therapeutic strategies in post-AMI-CS patients were added as source information. Several trials investigating vasoactive medications and meta-analysis providing information about benefits and risks of MCS devices were reviewed in this study.

THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

Early revascularization remains the most important intervention for CS in settings of AMI, and in patients with multivessel disease, recent trial data recommend revascularization on a "culprit-lesion-only" strategy. Although diverse types of MCS devices improve hemodynamics and organ perfusion in patients with CS, results from almost all randomized trials incorporating clinical end points were inconclusive. However, development of new algorithms for utilization of MCS devices and progresses in technology showed benefit in selected patients. A major advance in the management of CS is development of concept of regional CS centers based on the level of facilities and expertise. The modern systems of care with CS centers used as hubs integrated with emergency medical systems and other referee hospitals have the potential to improve patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional research is needed to establish new triage algorithms and to clarify intensity and timing of pharmacological and mechanical therapies.

Cardiogenic Shock Following Acute Myocardial Infarction: What's New?

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a state of critical end-organ hypoperfusion primarily due to cardiac dysfunction. This condition is the most common cause of death in patients affected by acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Despite early revascularization, prompt optimal medical therapy, and up-to-date mechanical circulatory supports, mortality of patients with CS remains high.The objective of this review is to summarize epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment options of CS in light of the new European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommendations. The latest European guidelines on myocardial revascularization have reviewed the previous guidelines with respect to early multivessel revascularization and routine use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients with AMI-related CS.Most of the current evidences come partly from randomized trials, but mostly from observational registries because of the difficulty to test different treatments in this life-threatening clinical setting.Some of the latest studies highlight the potential crucial benefit of newly introduced mechanical circulatory support devices, although evidences are not sufficient to definitely assess the benefit/risk ratio of the different systems.Many questions remain unanswered in this field, and further trials are advocated to better elucidate the best medical, reperfusion, and circulatory support approaches aimed to improve the poor prognosis of patients with CS after AMI.

Management of cardiogenic shock in patients with acute coronary syndromes

Cardiogenic shock remains a major problem affecting a large proportion of patients with acute coronary syndromes, with a persistent high mortality rate. Although mechanical reperfusion with percutaneous coronary intervention has improved outcomes following acute coronary syndromes, there is limited evidence supporting the other current treatments used to manage patients with cardiogenic shock (intra-aortic balloon pumps, percutaneous left ventricular assist devices and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). This article looks at these options, assessing current evidence and recent advances. It also discusses areas that still require research to ensure there is improvement in these high-risk patients, such as coordinated regionalised approaches to cardiogenic shock management with multidisciplinary care provided in designated tertiary shock centres.

[Acute myocardial infarction in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction : ESC guidelines 2017]

This article gives an update on the management of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) according to the recently released European Society of Cardiology guidelines 2017 and the modifications are compared to the previous STEMI guidelines from 2012. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains the preferred reperfusion strategy. New guideline recommendations relate to the access site with a clear preference for the radial artery, use of drug-eluting stents over bare metal stents, complete revascularization during the index hospitalization, and avoidance of routine thrombus aspiration. For periprocedural anticoagulation during PCI, bivalirudin has been downgraded. Oxygen treatment should be administered only if oxygen saturation is <90%. In cardiogenic shock, intra-aortic balloon pumps should no longer be used. New recommendations are in place with respect to the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy for patients without bleeding events during the first 12 months. Newly introduced sections cover myocardial infarction with no relevant stenosis of the coronary arteries (MINOCA), the introduction of new indicators for quality of care for myocardial infarction networks and new definitions for the time to reperfusion.

Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices for Cardiogenic Shock: State of the Art

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2019. Other selected articles can be found online at https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2019. Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901.

CULPRIT-SHOCK study

The treatment of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction concomitant with the presence of multivessel disease has been studied in several recent studies with the purpose of defining the need, as well as the best moment to approach residual lesions. However, such studies included only stable patients. The best therapeutic approach to cardiogenic shock secondary to acute coronary syndrome, however, remains controversial, but there are recommendations from specialists for revascularization that include non-event related injuries. Recently published, the CULPRIT-SHOCK study showed benefit of the initial approach only of the injury blamed for the acute event, in view of the multivessel percutaneous intervention, in the context of cardiogenic shock. In this perspective, the authors discuss the work in question, regarding methodological questions, limitations and clinical applicability.

Meta-analysis Comparing Culprit Vessel Only Versus Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) after a myocardial infarction continues to be associated with high mortality. Whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of noninfarct coronary arteries (multivessel intervention [MVI]) improves outcomes in CS after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains controversial. MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus databases were searched for original studies comparing MVI with culprit-vessel intervention (CVI) in AMI patients with multivessel disease and CS. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated and pooled using a random effects model. Thirteen studies, consisting of 7,906 patients (n_MVI = 1,937; n_CVI = 5,969), were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, the MVI and CVI groups did not differ significantly in the risk of short-term mortality (RR: 1.06 [0.91, 1.23]; p = 0.45; I² = 75.82%), long-term mortality (RR: 0.93 [0.78, 1.11]; p = 0.37; I² = 67.92%), reinfarction (RR: 1.16 [0.75, 1.79]; p = 0.50; I² = 0%), revascularization (RR: 0.84 [0.48, 1.47]; p = 0.54; I² = 83.01%), bleeding (RR: 1.15 [0.96, 1.38]; p = 0.09, I² = 0%), or stroke (RR: 1.29 [0.86, 1.94]; p = 0.80, I² = 0%). However, significantly increased risk of renal failure was seen in the MVI group (RR: 1.35 [1.10, 1.66]; p = 0.004; I² = 0%). On subgroup analysis, it was seen that results from retrospective studies showed higher short-term mortality in the MVI group in comparison with prospective studies (p = 0.003). The certainty in estimates is low due to the largely observational nature of the evidence. In conclusion, MVI provides no additional reduction in short- or long-term mortality in AMI patients with multivessel disease and CS. Additionally, the risk of renal failure may be higher with the use of MVI.

Culprit Vessel Only Versus Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Myocardial Infarction with Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies comparing outcomes between culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention (CV-PCI) versus multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) in patients with cardiogenic shock in the setting of acute myocardial infarction have shown conflicting results. This meta-analysis investigates the optimal approach for management of these patients considering recently published data.

METHODS

Electronic databases including MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library were searched for all clinical studies published until May 1, 2018, which compared outcomes in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. Studies comparing CV-PCI versus MV-PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were screened for inclusion in final analysis. The primary end point was in-hospital/30 day mortality. Secondary endpoints included long term (>6 months) mortality, renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy, stroke, bleeding, and recurrent myocardial infarction. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% of confidence interval (CI) were computed and p values <0.05 were considered significant.

RESULTS

Patient who underwent CV-PCI had significantly lower short-term mortality (in-hospital or 30-day mortality) (OR: 0.73, CI: 0.61-0.87, p = 0.0005), and lower odds of severe renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy (OR: 0.76, CI: 0.59-0.98, p = 0.03). There was no statistically significant difference in long-term mortality, stroke, bleeding, and recurrent myocardial infarction between two groups.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed lower short-term mortality and decreased odds of renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy with CV-PCI compared to MV-PCI. However, subgroup analysis including studies exclusively assessing STEMI patients revealed no statistically significant difference in outcomes. Further randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings and evaluate long term results.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Complete or Culprit Only Revascularization in Patients With Multivessel Disease Presenting With Cardiogenic Shock

The optimal strategy for patients with an acute myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel (MV) coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains unknown. We conducted a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials and observational studies that reported adjusted effect measures to evaluate the association of MV-PCI (percutaneous coronary intervention), compared with culprit only (C)-PCI, with cardiovascular events in patients admitted for CS and MV disease. We identified 12 studies (n = 1 randomized controlled trials, n = 11 observational) that included 7,417 patients (n = 1,809 treated with MV-PCI and n = 5,608 with C-PCI). When compared with C-PCI, MV-PCI was not associated with an increased risk of short-term death (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87 to 1.48, p = 0.35 and adjusted OR [OR_adj] 1.00, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.43, p = 1.00). In-hospital and/or short-term mortality tended to be higher with MV-PCI, when compared with C-PCI, for CS patients needing dialysis (ß 0.12, 95% CI from 0.049 to 0.198; p= 0.001), whereas MV-PCI was associated with lower in-hospital and/or short-term mortality in patients with an anterior MI (ß -0.022, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01; p <0.001). MV-PCI strategy was associated with a more frequent need for dialysis or contrast-induced nephropathy after revascularization (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.75, p = 0.02). In conclusion, MV-PCI seems not to increase risk of death during short- or long-term follow-up when compared with C-PCI in patients admitted for MV coronary artery disease and MI complicated by CS. Furthermore, it appears a more favorable strategy in patients with anterior MI, whereas the increased risk for AKI and its negative prognostic impact should be considered in decision-making process. Further studies are needed to confirm our hypothesis on in these subpopulations of CS patients.

Predictors of Outcomes in Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (MI-CS) is a major cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Predictors of outcomes in MI-CS include clinical, laboratory, radiologic variables, and management strategies. This article reviews the existing literature on short- and long-term predictors and risk stratification in MI complicated by CS.

One-Year Outcomes after PCI Strategies in Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Among patients with acute myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, and multivessel coronary artery disease, the risk of a composite of death from any cause or severe renal failure leading to renal-replacement therapy at 30 days was found to be lower with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion only than with immediate multivessel PCI. We evaluated clinical outcomes at 1 year.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 706 patients to either culprit-lesion-only PCI or immediate multivessel PCI. The results for the primary end point of death or renal-replacement therapy at 30 days have been reported previously. Prespecified secondary end points at 1 year included death from any cause, recurrent myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, rehospitalization for congestive heart failure, the composite of death or recurrent infarction, and the composite of death, recurrent infarction, or rehospitalization for heart failure.

RESULTS

As reported previously, at 30 days, the primary end point had occurred in 45.9% of the patients in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group and in 55.4% in the multivessel PCI group (P=0.01). At 1 year, death had occurred in 172 of 344 patients (50.0%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group and in 194 of 341 patients (56.9%) in the multivessel PCI group (relative risk, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.01). The rate of recurrent infarction was 1.7% with culprit-lesion-only PCI and 2.1% with multivessel PCI (relative risk, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.29 to 2.50), and the rate of a composite of death or recurrent infarction was 50.9% and 58.4%, respectively (relative risk, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.00). Repeat revascularization occurred more frequently with culprit-lesion-only PCI than with multivessel PCI (in 32.3% of the patients vs. 9.4%; relative risk, 3.44; 95% CI, 2.39 to 4.95), as did rehospitalization for heart failure (5.2% vs. 1.2%; relative risk, 4.46; 95% CI, 1.53 to 13.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock, the risk of death or renal-replacement therapy at 30 days was lower with culprit-lesion-only PCI than with immediate multivessel PCI, and mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups at 1 year of follow-up. (Funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Program and others; CULPRIT-SHOCK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927549 .).

Revascularization strategies in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with multi-vessel disease (MVD) presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS) remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the comparative differences between culprit-only revascularization (COR) versus instant multi-vessel revascularization (IMVR) in AMI and CS.

METHODS

13 studies were selected using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the CENTRAL (Inception - 31 November2017). Outcomes were assessed at short-term (in-hospital or ≤30 days duration) and long-term duration (≥6 months). Estimates were reported as random effects relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

In analysis of 7311 patients, COR significantly reduced the relative risk of short-term all-cause mortality (RR: 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.97; p = 0.01, I² = 50%) and renal failure (RR: 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.94; p = 0.01, I² = 7%) compared with IMVR. There were no significant differences between both the strategies in terms of reinfarction (RR: 1.25; 95% CI, 0.59-2.63; p = 0.56, I² = 0%), major bleeding (RR: 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-1.04; p = 0.14, I² = 0%) and stroke (RR: 0.77; 95% CI, 0.50-1.17; p = 0.22, I² = 0%) at short term duration. Similarly, no significant differences were observed between both groups regarding all-cause mortality (RR; 1.01; 95% CI, 0.85-1.20; p = 0.93, I² = 61%) and reinfarction (RR: 0.71; 95% CI, 0.34-1.47; p = 0.35, I² = 26%) at long term duration.

CONCLUSION

In MVD patients presenting with AMI and CS, IMVR was comparable to COR in terms of all-cause mortality at long term follow up duration. These results are predominantly derived from observational data and more randomized controlled trials are required to validate this impression.

[Infarct-related cardiogenic shock : Prognosis and treatment]

Patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) experience cardiogenic shock in about 6-10% of cases during the hospital treatment. In recent years, the incidence seems to be decreasing due to invasive diagnostics and therapy after myocardial infarction. Early diagnosis is important to initiate immediate revascularization using percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation as part of cardiogenic shock treatment. Thus, a significant improvement in survival can be achieved. Pharmacological and mechanical support is needed to maintain perfusion of the myocardium and organs. Drug therapy for infarct cardiogenic shock relies on dobutamine for inotropic agent and norepinephrine as a vasopressor. For further inotropic support, data on additional levosimendan treatment are available. The pharmacological therapy is supplemented by mechanical support systems such as Impella (ABIOMED, Danvers, MA, USA) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is hardly used anymore. The majority of cardiogenic shock survivors have little functional cardiac impairment in the long term. This shows the transient damage component (stunning, inflammation), which underlines the need for a fast and effective cardiovascular supportive therapy.

The prognostic impact of revascularization strategy in acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: Insights from the British Columbia Cardiac Registry

BACKGROUND

In patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit vessel is associated with improved outcomes. A large majority of these patients have multivessel disease (MVD). Whether or not PCI of non-culprit disease in the acute setting improves outcomes continues to be debated. We evaluated the prognostic impact of revascularization strategy for patients presenting with AMI and CS.

METHODS

We compared culprit vessel intervention (CVI) versus multivessel intervention in 649 patients with AMI, CS, and MVD enrolled in the British Columbia Cardiac Registry. We evaluated mortality at 30 days and 1 year.

RESULTS

CVI was associated with lower mortality at 30 days (23.7% vs. 34.5%, P = 0.004) and 1 year (32.6% vs. 44.3%, P = 0.003). CVI was an independent predictor for survival at 30 days (HR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.45-0.88, P = 0.009) and 1 year (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.54-0.96, P = 0.027). These findings were confirmed in propensity-matched cohorts. Subgroup analyses indicated that CVI was associated with lower mortality in patients aged <80 years; non-diabetics; and those presenting with ST-elevation MI. When analyzing non-culprit anatomy, PCI of non-culprit LAD disease was associated with higher 1-year mortality (HR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.13-2.01, P = 0.006), primarily with non-culprit proximal LAD disease (HR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.20-2.76, P = 0.005). However, PCI of non-culprit non-proximal LAD, LCx, and RCA disease was not associated with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with AMI and CS, a strategy of CVI appears to be associated with lower mortality. These findings are consistent with recently published randomized-controlled trial data.

Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in STEMI: a Contemporary Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization of the culprit coronary vessel and restoration of coronary flow is the goal of the initial management. However, obstructive non-culprit disease is frequently concomitantly found during initial angiography and portends a poor prognosis. Management of non-culprit lesions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been the subject of extensive debate. This review will examine the currently available evidence, with a specific focus on randomized clinical trials performed to date.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although early observational data suggested better outcomes with culprit-only revascularization, more recent data from several randomized trials have suggested improved outcomes with complete multivessel revascularization, either during the index PCI procedure or as a staged procedure. Data from recent randomized controlled trials have suggested the superiority of complete or multivessel revascularization and have subsequently led to changes to the most recent iterations of STEMI guidelines. However, the optimal management and timing of revascularization of non-culprit lesions in STEMI remain controversial.