Cardiogenic shock with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A report from the SHOCK Trial Registry

被引:58
|
作者
Jacobs, AK
French, JK
Col, J
Sleeper, LA
Slater, JN
Carnendran, L
Boland, J
Jiang, XJ
LeJemtel, T
Hochman, JS
机构
[1] Boston Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Med, Boston, MA 02118 USA
[2] Green Lane Hosp, Auckland 3, New Zealand
[3] Clin Univ, Brussels, Belgium
[4] New England Res Inst, Watertown, MA 02172 USA
[5] St Lukes Roosevelt Hosp, New York, NY 10025 USA
[6] CHR Citadelle, Liege, Belgium
[7] Albert Einstein Coll Med, Bronx, NY 10467 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00888-3
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVES We sought to determine the outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (MI). BACKGROUND Such patients represent a high-risk (ST-segment depression) or low-risk (normal or nonspecific electrocardiographic findings) group for whom optimal therapy, particularly in the setting of shock, is unknown. METHODS We assessed characteristics and outcomes of 881 patients with CS due to predominant Left ventricular (LV) dysfunction in the SHOCK Trial Registry. RESULTS Patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI (n = 152) were significantly older and had significantly more prior MI, heart failure, azotemia, bypass surgery, and peripheral vascular disease than patients with ST-elevation MI (n = 729). On average, the groups had similar in-hospital LV ejection fractions (similar to 30%), but patients with non-ST-elevation MI had a lower highest creatine kinase and were more likely to have triple-vessel disease. Among patients selected for coronary angiography, the left circumflex artery was the culprit vessel in 34.6% of non-ST-elevation versus 13.4% of ST-elevation MI patients (p = 0.001). Despite having more recurrent ischemia (25.7% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.058), non-ST-elevation patients underwent angiography less often (52.6% vs. 64.1%, p = 0.010). The proportion undergoing revascularization was similar (36.8% for non-ST-elevation vs. 41.9% ST-elevation MI, p = 0.277). In-hospital mortality also was similar in the two groups (62.5% for non-ST-elevation vs. 60.4% ST-elevation MI). After adjustment, ST-segment elevation MI did not independently predict in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 2.02; p = 0.252). CONCLUSIONS Patients with CS and non-ST-segment elevation MI have a higher-risk profile than shock patients with ST-segment elevation, bur similar in-hospital mortality. More recurrent ischemia and less angiography represent opportunities for earlier intervention, and early reperfusion therapy for circumflex artery occlusion should be considered when non-ST-elevation MI causes CS. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36:1091-6) (C) 2000 by the American College of Cardiology.
引用
收藏
页码:1091 / 1096
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Nonculprit Disease in Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock
    Iqbal, M. Bilal
    [J]. JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2021, 14 (10) : 1079 - 1081
  • [2] Cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction without ST segment elevation: Final report from the SHOCK registry
    French, JK
    Jacobs, AK
    Col, J
    Sleeper, LA
    Slater, J
    Carnendran, L
    Boland, J
    [J]. CIRCULATION, 1999, 100 (18) : 577 - 577
  • [3] Prognosis of patients with cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction: The difference between ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
    Tsai, Ming-Lung
    Hsieh, Ming-Jer
    Chen, Chun-Chi
    Wu, Victor Chien-Chia
    Lan, Wen-Ching
    Huang, Yu-Tung
    Hsieh, I-Chang
    Chang, Shang-Hung
    [J]. MEDICINE, 2022, 101 (36) : E30426
  • [4] Cardiogenic shock complicating non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: An 18-year study
    Vallabhajosyula, Saraschandra
    Bhopalwala, Huzefa M.
    Sundaragiri, Pranathi R.
    Dewaswala, Nakeya
    Cheungpasitporn, Wisit
    Doshi, Rajkumar
    Prasad, Abhiram
    Sandhu, Gurpreet S.
    Jaffe, Allan S.
    Bell, Malcolm R.
    David, R. Holmes, Jr.
    Ky, Whitesburg
    NC, Winston-Salem
    [J]. AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL, 2022, 244 : 54 - 65
  • [5] Transfer for emergency revascularization in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock - A report from the SHOCK trial and registry
    Jeger, RV
    Tseng, CH
    Hochman, JS
    Bates, ER
    [J]. CIRCULATION, 2005, 112 (17) : U723 - U723
  • [6] CARDIOGENIC SHOCK COMPLICATING NON-ST-SEGMENT ELEVATION MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION: AN 18-YEAR NATIONAL COHORT STUDY
    Bhopalwala, Huzefa
    Dewaswala, Nakeya
    Vallabhajosyula, Saraschandra
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2022, 79 (09) : 1136 - 1136
  • [7] Ethnic differences in rate, treatment and outcome of cardiogenic shock complicating ST segment elevation myocardial infarction - A report from the national registry of myocardial infarction
    Jorapur, Vinod
    Pearte, Camille
    Apolito, Renato
    Frederick, Paul D.
    Babaev, Anvar
    Hochman, Judith S.
    [J]. CIRCULATION, 2006, 114 (18) : 463 - 463
  • [8] Cardiogenic shock complicating non St segment elevation myocardial infarction data from Rico survey
    Zeller, M
    Ravisy, J
    Rioufol, G
    Salmi-Belmihoub, S
    Jolak, M
    Beer, JC
    Vincent-Martin, M
    L'Huillier, I
    Makki, H
    Buffet, P
    Moreau, N
    Oudot, A
    Cottin, Y
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2005, 45 (03) : 191A - 191A
  • [9] Long-term outcomes among older patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock
    Bagai, Akshay
    Chen, Anita Y.
    Wang, Tracy Y.
    Alexander, Karen P.
    Thomas, Laine
    Ohman, E. Magnus
    Hochman, Judith S.
    Peterson, Eric D.
    Roe, Matthew T.
    [J]. AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL, 2013, 166 (02) : 298 - 305
  • [10] Cardiogenic shock without ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: Observations and implications
    Jacobs, AK
    Davidoff, R
    Mendes, LA
    French, JK
    Talley, JD
    Col, JJ
    Menegus, MA
    Lejemtel, TH
    Sleeper, LA
    Hochman, JS
    [J]. CIRCULATION, 1997, 96 (08) : 1117 - 1117