Efficacy of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

Therapeutic strategies for cardiogenic shock, 2006

Cardiogenic shock, a devastating consequence of acute myocardial infarction, is associated with extremely high mortality. Treatment strategies should focus on prompt reperfusion and hemodynamic support. The primary approach for therapy is emergent angiography and revascularization using percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass surgery, with the assistance of intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation. Several adjunctive pharmacologic agents, particularly inotropic drugs and vasopressors, are also helpful for hemodynamic support. However, these agents have not been shown to provide a survival benefit, and their use is primarily based on clinical experience. Since our last publication, several important advances have been made in the understanding and treatment of cardiogenic shock. Recent evidence suggests that a systemic inflammatory response, including the upregulation of inducible nitric oxide synthase, complement activation, and an inflammatory cytokine cascade, play a role in the development of cardiogenic shock. Newer therapeutic strategies, including C5 inhibitors and nitric oxide synthase inhibitors, are being combined with traditional strategies, such as inotropic agents, vasopressors, and circulatory assist, to treat cardiogenic shock.

Racial and ethnic differences in the treatment and outcome of cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction

We investigated the association between race/ethnicity on the use of cardiac resources in patients who have acute myocardial infarction that is complicated by cardiogenic shock. The Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial examined the effect of reperfusion and revascularization treatment strategies on mortality. Patients screened but not enrolled in the SHOCK Trial (n = 1,189) were entered into the SHOCK registry. Of the patients in the United States registry (n = 538) who had shock due to predominant left ventricular failure, 440 were characterized as white (82%), 42 as Hispanic (8%), 34 as African-American (6%), and 22 as Asian/other (4%). The use of invasive procedures differed significantly by race/ethnicity. Hispanic patients underwent coronary angiography significantly less often than did white patients (38 vs 66%, p = 0.002). Among those patients who underwent coronary angiography, there were no race/ethnicity differences in the proportion of patients who underwent revascularization (p = 0.353). Overall in-hospital mortality (57%) differed significantly by race/ethnicity (p = 0.05), with the highest mortality rate in Hispanic patients (74% vs 65% for African-Americans, 56% for whites, and 41% for Asian/other). After adjustment for patient characteristics and use of revascularization, there were no mortality differences by race/ethnicity (p = 0.262), with all race/ethnicity subgroups benefiting equally by revascularization. In conclusion, the SHOCK registry showed significant differences in the treatment and in-hospital mortality of Hispanic patients who had cardiogenic shock, with these patients being less likely to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention. Therefore, early revascularization should be strongly considered for all patients, independent of race/ethnicity, who develop cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction.

Therapeutic Strategies for Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock is a devastating consequence of acute myocardial infarction; it is associated with an extremely high mortality. Treatment strategies should be focused on prompt reperfusion, as well as hemodynamic support. The optimal approach for therapy is emergent angiography and revascularization using percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass surgery, with the assistance of intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation. Several adjunctive pharmacologic agents, particularly inotropic drugs and vasopressors, are also helpful for hemodynamic support. However, these agents have not been shown to provide a survival benefit, and their use is primarily based on clinical experience.

Survival of patients treated with intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation for cardiogenic shock in a tertiary centre: variables correlated with death

OBJECTIVE

To describe the characteristics and mortality rates of 132 cardiogenic shock patients treated with intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation at a university hospital.

INTERVENTIONS

All patients underwent intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. A total of 99 out of 132 patients were revascularized with angioplasty, surgery or were transplanted (intervention group), 33 out of 132 had no further intervention (no-intervention group).

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Overall mortality was 54.5% (72/132). In the intervention group mortality was 50.5% (50/99), in the no-intervention group mortality was 66.6% (22/33). The odds ratio for death comparing the intervention group with the no-intervention group was 0.533 (95% confidence interval 0.238-1.189, P = 0.122). By univariate analysis, diabetes and a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 0.35 represented an increased odds ratio of death of 4.25 (1.813-9.965, P = 0.001) and 3.03 (1.22-7.54, P = 0.015), respectively. A lactate level greater than 2.5 mg/dl at baseline resulted in an increased odds ratio of death of 5.185 (1.988-13.525, P = 0.0001). Using a multivariate logistic regression analysis, a left ventricular ejection fraction less than 0.35 and diabetes remained significantly correlated with death.

CONCLUSION

Mortality rates remain high in cardiogenic shock patients in need of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. The odds ratio for death tended to be lower in the intervention group compared with the no-intervention group, although the absolute difference in mortality as a result of an intervention was only 15.2%, and did not reach statistical significance probably because of the small sample size. Diabetes and an ejection fraction lower than 35% are significant predictors for a worse prognosis.

Percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock in the SHOCK Trial Registry

BACKGROUND

The SHOCK Registry prospectively enrolled patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction in 36 multinational centers.

METHODS

Cardiogenic shock was predominantly attributable to left ventricular pump failure in 884 patients. Of these, 276 underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after shock onset and are the subject of this report.

RESULTS

The majority (78%) of patients undergoing angiography had multivessel disease. As the number of diseased arteries rose from 1 to 3, mortality rates rose from 34.2% to 51.2%. Patients who underwent PCI had lower in-hospital mortality rates than did patients treated medically (46.4% vs 78.0%, P < .001), even after adjustment for patient differences and survival bias (P = .037). Before PCI, the culprit artery was occluded (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction grade 0 or 1 flow) in 76.3%. After PCI, the in-hospital mortality rate was 33.3% if reperfusion was complete (grade 3 flow), 50.0% with incomplete reperfusion (grade 2 flow), and 85.7% with absent reperfusion (grade 0 or 1 flow) (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective, multicenter registry of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock is consistent with a reduction in mortality rates as the result of percutaneous coronary revascularization. Coronary artery patency was an important predictor of outcome. Measures to promote early and rapid reperfusion appear critically important in improving the otherwise poor outcome associated with cardiogenic shock.

Impact of thrombolysis, intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation, and their combination in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK?

OBJECTIVES

We sought to investigate the potential benefit of thrombolytic therapy (TT) and intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) on in-hospital mortality rates of patients enrolled in a prospective, multi-center Registry of acute myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS).

BACKGROUND

Retrospective studies suggest that patients suffering from CS due to MI have lower in-hospital mortality rates when IABP support is added to TT. This hypothesis has not heretofore been examined prospectively in a study devoted to CS.

METHODS

Of 1,190 patients enrolled at 36 participating centers, 884 patients had CS due to predominant left ventricular (LV) failure. Excluding 26 patients with IABP placed prior to shock onset and 2 patients with incomplete data, 856 patients were evaluated regarding TT and IABP utilization. Treatments, selected by local physicians, fell into four categories: no TT, no IABP (33%; n = 285); IABP only (33%; n = 279); TT only (15%; n = 132); and TT and IABP (19%; n = 160).

RESULTS

Patients in CS treated with TT had a lower in-hospital mortality than those who did not receive TT (54% vs. 64%, p = 0.005), and those selected for IABP had a lower in-hospital mortality than those who did not receive IABP (50% vs. 72%, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, there was a significant difference in in-hospital mortality among the four treatment groups: TT + IABP (47%), IABP only (52%), TT only (63%), no TT, no IABP (77%) (p < 0.0001). Patients receiving early IABP (< or = 6 h after thrombolytic therapy, n = 72) had in-hospital mortality similar to those with late IABP (53% vs. 41%, n = 64, respectively, p = 0.172). Revascularization rates differed among the four groups: no TT, no IABP (18%); IABP only (70%); TT only (20%); TT and IABP (68%, p < 0.0001); this influenced in-hospital mortality significantly (39% with revascularization vs. 78% without revascularization, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of patients in cardiogenic shock due to predominant LV failure with TT, IABP and revascularization by PTCA/CABG was associated with lower in-hospital mortality rates than standard medical therapy in this Registry. For hospitals without revascularization capability, a strategy of early TT and IABP followed by immediate transfer for PTCA or CABG may be appropriate. However, selection bias is evident and further investigation is required.

Implications of the timing of onset of cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK?

OBJECTIVES

We sought to examine the implications of the timing of onset of cardiogenic shock (CS) after acute myocardial infarction (MI).

BACKGROUND

Little information is available about the relationships between timing, clinical substrate, management and outcomes of shock.

METHODS

The multinational SHOCK Trial Registry enrolled MI patients with CS from 1993 to 1997. Cardiogenic shock was predominantly attributable to left ventricular (LV) failure in 815 Registry patients for whom temporal data were available. We examined factors related to the timing of shock onset and the relation of temporal onset to in-hospital outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, shock developed a median of 6.2 h after MI symptom onset. Shock onset varied by culprit artery: left main, median 1.7 h; right, 3.5 h; circumflex, 3.9 h; left anterior descending (LAD), 11.0 h; saphenous vein graft, 10.9 h (p = 0.025). Early shock (< 24 h) occurred in 74.1% and was associated with chest pain at shock onset, ST-segment elevation in two or more leads, multiple infarct locations, inferior MI, left main disease and smoking. Late shock (> or = 24 h) was associated with recurrent ischemia, Q waves in two or more leads and LAD culprit vessel. Mortality was higher in patients with early versus late shock (62.6% vs. 53.6%, p = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

Shock onset after acute MI occurred within 24 h in 74% of the patients with predominant LV failure. Mortality was slightly higher in patients developing shock early rather than later. Many factors influence when shock develops, which has implications for its management.

Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction--etiologies, management and outcome: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK?

OBJECTIVES

This SHOCK Study report seeks to provide an overview of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (MI) and the outcome with various treatments. The outcome of patients undergoing revascularization in the SHOCK Trial Registry and SHOCK Trial are compared.

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock is the leading cause of death in patients hospitalized for acute MI. The randomized SHOCK Trial reported improved six-month survival with early revascularization.

METHODS

Patients with CS complicating acute MI who were not enrolled in the concurrent randomized trial were registered. Patient characteristics were recorded as were procedures and vital status at hospital discharge.

RESULTS

Between April 1993 and August 1997, 1,190 patients with CS were registered and 232 were randomized in the SHOCK Trial. Predominant left ventricular failure (78.5%) was most common, with isolated right ventricular shock in 2.8%, severe mitral regurgitation in 6.9%, ventricular septal rupture in 3.9% and tamponade in 1.4%. In-hospital Registry mortality was 60%, with ventricular septal rupture associated with a significantly higher mortality (87.3%) than all other categories (p < 0.01). The risk profile and mortality were lower for Registry patients who were managed with thrombolytic therapy and/or intra-aortic balloon counter-pulsation, coronary angiography, angioplasty and/or coronary artery bypass surgery. After adjusting for these differences, the extent to which survival was improved with early revascularization was similar to that observed in the randomized SHOCK Trial.

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective Registry the etiology of CS was a mechanical complication in 12%. The similarity of the beneficial treatment effect in patients undergoing early revascularization in the SHOCK Trial Registry and SHOCK Trial provides strong support for the generalizability of the SHOCK Trial results.

Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

The leading cause of death in patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction is cardiogenic shock. We conducted a randomized trial to evaluate early revascularization in patients with cardiogenic shock.

METHODS

Patients with shock due to left ventricular failure complicating myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to emergency revascularization (152 patients) or initial medical stabilization (150 patients). Revascularization was accomplished by either coronary-artery bypass grafting or angioplasty. Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation was performed in 86 percent of the patients in both groups. The primary end point was mortality from all causes at 30 days. Six-month survival was a secondary end point.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 66+/-10 years, 32 percent were women and 55 percent were transferred from other hospitals. The median time to the onset of shock was 5.6 hours after infarction, and most infarcts were anterior in location. Ninety-seven percent of the patients assigned to revascularization underwent early coronary angiography, and 87 percent underwent revascularization; only 2.7 percent of the patients assigned to medical therapy crossed over to early revascularization without clinical indication. Overall mortality at 30 days did not differ significantly between the revascularization and medical-therapy groups (46.7 percent and 56.0 percent, respectively; difference, -9.3 percent; 95 percent confidence interval for the difference, -20.5 to 1.9 percent; P=0.11). Six-month mortality was lower in the revascularization group than in the medical-therapy group (50.3 percent vs. 63.1 percent, P=0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with cardiogenic shock, emergency revascularization did not significantly reduce overall mortality at 30 days. However, after six months there was a significant survival benefit. Early revascularization should be strongly considered for patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK: an international randomized trial of emergency PTCA/CABG-trial design. The SHOCK Trial Study Group

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is the leading cause of death in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (MI). Nonrandomized studies suggest reduced mortality rate with revascularization.

TRIAL DESIGN

The SHOCK trial is a multicenter, randomized, and unblinded study with a Registry for trial-eligible and ineligible nonrandomized patients. The trial is testing the hypothesis that a direct invasive strategy of emergency revascularization for patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute MI will reduce 30-day all-cause mortality rate by 20 absolute percentage points compared with initial medical stabilization. Eligibility criteria include development of CS within 36 hours of an acute transmural MI as evidenced by ST elevation or new left bundle branch block MI; clinical criteria for CS with hemodynamic confirmation; absence of a mechanical, iatrogenic, or other cause of shock; and enrollment within 12 hours of CS diagnosis. Patients randomly assigned to emergency revascularization immediately undergo coronary angiography, with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty or coronary artery bypass grafting depending on the coronary anatomy. Patients assigned to initial medical stabilization may undergo revascularization >/=54 hours after randomization.

END POINTS

The primary end point is all-cause 30-day mortality after randomization. Secondary end points include death at trial termination, changes in left ventricular dimensions and function measured by echocardiography at randomization and 2 weeks later, and changes in quality of life and physical functioning from 2 weeks after discharge to 6 months after MI.

Projected cost-effectiveness of primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction under varying assumptions about effectiveness, existing facilities and staffing and volume of services.

BACKGROUND

Primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction has reduced mortality in some studies, but its actual effectiveness may vary, and most U.S. hospitals do not have cardiac catheterization laboratories. Projections of cost-effectiveness in various settings are needed for decisions about adoption.

METHODS

We created a decision analytic model to compare three policies: primary angioplasty, intravenous thrombolysis and no intervention. Probabilities of health outcomes were taken from randomized trials (base case efficacy assumptions) and community-based studies (effectiveness assumptions). The base case analysis assumed that a hospital with an existing laboratory with night/weekend staffing coverage admitted 200 patients with a myocardial infarction annually. In alternative scenarios, a new laboratory was built, and its capacity for elective procedures was either 1) needed or 2) redundant with existing laboratories.

RESULTS

Under base case efficacy assumptions, primary angioplasty resulted in cost savings compared with thrombolysis and had a cost of $12,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved compared with no intervention. In sensitivity analyses, when there was an existing cardiac catheterization laboratory at a hospital with > or = 200 patients with a myocardial infarction annually, primary angioplasty had a cost of < $30,000/QALY saved under a wide range of assumptions. However, the cost/QALY saved increased sharply under effectiveness assumptions when the hospital had < 150 patients with a myocardial infarction annually or when a redundant laboratory was built.

CONCLUSIONS

At hospitals with an existing cardiac catheterization laboratory, primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction would be cost-effective relative to other medical interventions under a wide range of assumptions. The procedure's relative cost-ineffectiveness at low volumes or redundant laboratories supports regionalization of cardiac services in urban areas. However, approaches to overcoming competitive barriers and close monitoring of outcomes and costs will be needed.

Primary angioplasty and thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction: an evidence summary

Coronary angioplasty is being increasingly used as the primary treatment for patients with acute myocardial infarction, but controversy remains over its potential adoption in preference to thrombolysis as standard care. This report summarizes the published evidence on health outcomes after primary angioplasty compared with thrombolysis or no intervention for patients with acute myocardial infarction. The data tables presented provide the scientific groundwork to assist physicians and other policy-makers in deciding which interventions to provide for broad populations of patients.