Coronary Intervention For Cardiogenic Shock Research Articles

Abstract 18298: 10-Year Trends of In-Hospital Outcomes of Patients That Underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background: Cardiogenic shock complicating acute coronary syndrome (CS-ACS) is a life-threatening condition and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains a fundamental approach in its management. In recent years, notable advancements have emerged, including the utilization of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices and an enhanced understanding of patient selection for PCI. This study aims to assess the temporal trends in patient background and outcomes of patients who underwent PCI for CS-ACS. Methods: The Keio interhospital Cardiovascular Studies (KiCS)-PCI registry prospectively collects approximately 200 variables, which were defined in accordance with the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR), from the major teaching hospitals in Tokyo metropolitan area in Japan. Between 2009 and 2019, 24,671 consecutive cases were registered, 10,053 patients (40.7%) undergoing PCI for ACS, of which 870 patients (8.5%) had CS-ACS. We stratified CS-ACS patients into 4-time frame groups (T1: 2009-2011, T2: 2012-2013, T3: 2014-2016, and T4: 2017-2019), and examined the temporal trends in patient risk profiles using the NCDR score (ranging 0-100, reflecting predicted mortality rates). Additionally, we assessed the incidence and types of employed MCS as well as the in-hospital mortality rate. Results: During the study period, the proportion of CS-ACS remained stable, accounting for 8.0% in T1 to 8.2% in T4 of ACS-related PCI cases. The calculated NCDR risk score demonstrated minimal variation, ranging from 70.6 in T1 to 70.1 in T4. There was a notable decrease in the utilization of MCS (66.5% in T1 to 56.7% in T4), mainly driven by a reduction in the use of intra-aortic balloon pump (70.3% to 55.0%, p for trend<0.001), with a increase in the concomitant use of veno-arterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (27.6% to 36.2%, p for trend<0.001). However, the in-hospital mortality rate for CS-ACS patients remained persistently high at 30%. Conclusion: Over the past decade, there have been notable changes in the peri-procedural management of CS-ACS, albeit no significant improvements in patient outcomes was observed. The result calls for additional efforts to enhance their management.

Impact of Clonal Hematopoiesis in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction

BackgroundClonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) is common in elderly individuals and is associated with an increased risk of both hematologic malignancies and cardiovascular disease. The impact of CHIP on the outcomes for patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains undetermined. ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine the prognostic impact of CHIP in CS after AMI. MethodsBlood samples were obtained at randomization from 446 patients included in the CULPRIT-SHOCK (Culprit Lesion Only vs Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock; NCT01927549) trial. CHIP was assessed using a next-generation sequencing approach targeting the most commonly mutated genes; the primary outcome at 30 days comprised all-cause mortality and renal replacement therapy. ResultsCHIP variants at ≥2% variant allele frequency were detected in 29% (n = 129), most commonly in the DNMT3A or TET2 genes, which harbored 47% and 36% of all mutations, respectively. Compared to non-CHIP patients, CHIP carriers were older and had decreased renal function and increased levels of N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide and inflammatory biomarkers. CHIP carriers had worse short-term outcomes measured either as mortality or as the combined clinical endpoint of mortality or severe renal failure within 30 days. Association of CHIP with the combined endpoint was independent of age and biomarkers reflecting kidney function, heart failure severity, and inflammation (OR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.05-3.21; P = 0.03) but not significant regarding all-cause mortality (OR: 1.67; 95% CI: 0.96-2.90; P = 0.069). ConclusionsCHIP is frequent among AMI and CS patients and is associated with impaired clinical outcome. CHIP assessment may facilitate risk stratification in patients with CS and imply novel treatment targets. (Culprit Lesion Only vs Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock [CULPRIT-SHOCK]; NCT01927549)

Transradial Versus Transfemoral Approach for Endovascular Thrombectomy of Left Anterior Circulation Stroke With Bovine Arch

Transradial Versus Transfemoral Approach for Endovascular Thrombectomy of Left Anterior Circulation Stroke With Bovine Arch

ECPella: High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock “case report”

ECPella: High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock “case report”

Association of Culprit Lesion Location With Outcomes of Culprit-Lesion-Only vs Immediate Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock

Myocardial infarction with a culprit lesion located in the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery compared with other coronary segments is associated with more myocardium at risk and worse clinical outcomes. To evaluate the association of culprit lesion location with outcomes of culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention with optional staged revascularization vs immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease, myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock. Post hoc analysis of the Culprit Lesion Only Coronary Intervention vs Multivessel Coronary Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock (CULPRIT-SHOCK), an investigator-initiated randomized, open-label clinical trial. Patients with multivessel disease, acute myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock were enrolled at 83 European centers from April 2013 through April 2017. Patients were randomized to culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention with optional staged revascularization or immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (1:1). For this analysis, patients were stratified by culprit lesion location in the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery group and other-culprit-lesion location group. End points included a composite of death or kidney replacement therapy at 30 days and death at 1 year. The median age of the study population was 70 (interquartile range, 60-78 years) and 524 of the study participants were men (76.4%). Of the 685 patients, 33.4% constituted the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery group and 66.6% the other-culprit-lesion location group. The left main or proximal left anterior descending artery group had worse outcomes compared with the other-culprit-lesion location group (56.8% vs 47.5%; P = .02 for the composite end point at 30 days and 59.8% vs 50.1%; P = .02 for death at 1 year). In both groups, culprit-lesion-only vs immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a reduced risk of the composite end point at 30 days (49.1% vs 64.3% and 44.1% vs 50.9%; P for interaction = .27). At 1 year, culprit-lesion-only vs immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a significantly reduced risk of death in the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery but not the other-culprit-lesion location group (50.0% vs 69.6%; P = .003 and 49.8% vs 50.4%; P = .89; P for interaction = 0.02). In patients with multivessel disease with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock, a culprit lesion located in the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery vs other coronary segments was associated with worse outcomes. These patients may especially benefit from culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention with optional staged revascularization, although further investigation is needed to confirm this finding. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01927549.

Prognostic impact of angiographic findings, procedural success, and timing of percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock.

AimsUrgent revascularization is the mainstay of treatment in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) related cardiogenic shock (CS). The aim was to investigate the association of angiographic results with 90‐day mortality. Procedural complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were also examined.Methods and resultsThis CardShock (NCT01374867) substudy included 158 patients with ACS aetiology and data on coronary angiography and complications during PCI procedure. Survival analysis was conducted with Kaplan–Meier curves and Cox regression analysis. Median age was 67 ± 11 years, and 77% were men. During 90‐day follow‐up, 66 (42%) patients died. Patients with one‐vessel disease (n = 49) had lower mortality than patients with two‐vessel (n = 59) or three‐vessel (n = 50) disease (25% vs. 48% vs. 52%, P = 0.011). Successful revascularization [Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Flow 3 post‐PCI) was achieved more often in survivors than non‐survivors (81% vs. 60%, P = 0.019). The median symptom‐to‐balloon time was 340 (196–660) minutes, with no difference between survivors and non‐survivors. In multivariable mortality analysis, multivessel disease (HR 2.59, CI95% 1.29–5.18) and TIMI flow <3 post‐PCI (HR 2.41, CI95% 1.4–4.15) were associated with 90‐day mortality. Procedural PCI complications were recorded in 51 (35%) patients, arrhythmic complications being the most common (n = 32, 63%). The incidence of complications was similar between survivors and non‐survivors (31% vs. 42%, P = 0.21).ConclusionsMultivessel disease is associated with worse survival in ACS‐related CS. In patients undergoing PCI, arrhythmic complications were common, but not associated with excess mortality. Successful revascularization of the IRA had positive effect on outcome despite delay from symptom onset.

Predictors of short-term outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock complicating STEMI—A tertiary care center experience

BackgroundStudying the outcomes in patients presenting with cardiogenic shock with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (CS-STEMI) and undergoing primary or rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may give an insight to the unmet needs in STEMI-care in our region and may help in future recommendations in improving survival. Materials and methodolgyDuring the period from January 2001- June 2017, there were 114 patients included in the study. The demographic, clinical and angiographic characteristics were compared between the survivors and non-survivors. All these variables were also compared between two-time frames (Phase 1- January 2001 to June 2007; Phase 2- July 2007 to June 2017). ResultsAmong patients undergoing PCI for STEMI, 7.5% were in cardiogenic shock. In-hospital mortality for the patients included in the study was 53.5%. Total ischemic time (OR=0.99, 0.99–1; p=0.02), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (OR=0.90, 0.82–0.98; p=0.02), need for cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (OR=0.12, 0.24–0.66; p=0.01), and post PCI TIMI flows (OR=0.08, 0.02–0.29; p<0.001) were the significant determinants of in-hospital mortality in the regression analysis. There was no significant change in mortality between the two phases of the study, though there was a reduction in total ischemic and door-to-balloon times, transfer admissions, use of thrombolytics, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, intra-aortic balloon pump, and mechanical ventilation in phase 2. ConclusionPatients presenting in CS-STEMI and undergoing PCI continue to experience high mortality rates, despite improvements in total ischemic times. Further improvement in the systems-of-care are required to bring about reduction in mortality in this high-risk subset.

Contemporary trends in cardiogenic shock: Incidence, intra-aortic balloon pump utilisation and outcomes from the London Heart Attack Group.

Cardiogenic shock remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. We aimed to assess the current trends in cardiogenic shock management, looking specifically at the incidence, use of intra-aortic balloon pump therapy and outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. We undertook an observational cohort study of 21,210 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients treated between 2005-2015 at the eight Heart Attack Centres in London, UK. Patients' details were recorded at the time of the procedure into local databases using the British Cardiac Intervention Society percutaneous coronary intervention dataset. There were 1890 patients who presented with cardiogenic shock. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at a median follow-up of 4.1 years (interquartile range: 2.2-5.8 years). Increasing rates of cardiogenic shock were seen over the course of the study with consistently high mortality rates of 45-70%. A total of 685 patients underwent intra-aortic balloon pump insertion during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock with decreasing rates over time. Those patients undergoing intra-aortic balloon pump therapy were younger, more likely to have poor left ventricular function and less likely to have had previous percutaneous coronary intervention compared to the control group. Procedural success rates were similar (86.0% vs 87.1%, p=0.292) although crude, in-hospital major adverse cardiac event rates were higher (43.8% vs 33.7%, p<0.0001) in patients undergoing intra-aortic balloon pump therapy. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated significantly higher mortality rates in patients receiving intra-aortic balloon pump therapy (50.9% intra-aortic balloon pump vs 39.9% control, p<0.0001) during the follow-up period. After multivariate Cox analysis (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.62-1.89) and the use of propensity matching (hazard ratio: 1.29, 95% confidence interval: 0.68-1.45) intra-aortic balloon pump therapy was not associated with mortality. Cardiogenic shock treated by percutaneous coronary intervention is increasing in incidence and remains a condition associated with high mortality and limited treatment options. Intra-aortic balloon pump therapy was not associated with a long-term survival benefit in this cohort and may be associated with increased early morbidity.

P3402Multivessel versus culprit lesion only percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis

P3402Multivessel versus culprit lesion only percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis

Multivessel versus culprit lesion only percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Early revascularisation of the culprit lesion is the therapeutic cornerstone in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. The optimal management of additional non-culprit lesions is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to summarise current evidence on the comparison of immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) or culprit lesion only PCI with possible staged revascularisation (C-PCI) in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Medical literature databases were screened to identify analyses comparing MV-PCI with C-PCI in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease. In absence of randomised trials, 10 cohort studies were included in the current meta-analysis. The primary outcome of short-term mortality was assessed at hospital discharge or 30 days after hospital admission. Secondary outcomes were long-term mortality as well as myocardial re-infarction, stroke, acute renal failure, and bleeding at short-term follow-up. Of 6051 patients, 1194 (19.7%) received MV-PCI and 4857 (80.3%) C-PCI. Short-term mortality was 37.5% in patients undergoing MV-PCI compared with 28.8% in C-PCI patients (risk ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.41, p=0.001). Long-term mortality ( p=0.77), myocardial re-infarction ( p=0.77), stroke ( p=0.12), acute renal failure ( p=0.17) and bleeding ( p=0.53) did not differ significantly between the two revascularisation groups. Results of this first meta-analysis on the interventional management of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease do not support MV-PCI over C-PCI. However, possible treatment selection bias in the individual studies must be taken into account.

TCTAP C-163 Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock Under VA-ECMO Support

### Patient initials or identifier number KJH ### Relevant clinical history and physical exam 76-years old male admitted our emergency department complaining of chest pain for several hours. He took several medications to control his blood pressure and glucose level. He’s current smoker. His

Transradial versus transfemoral approach for percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock: A radial-first centre experience and meta-analysis of published studies

The transradial approach for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with a better outcome in myocardial infarction (MI), but patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) were excluded from most trials. To compare outcomes of PCI for MI-related CS via the transradial versus transfemoral approach. A prospective cohort of 101 consecutive patients admitted for PCI for MI-related CS were treated via the transradial (n=74) or transfemoral (n=27) approach. Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for prespecified variables and a propensity score for approach were used to compare mortality, death/MI/stroke and bleeding between the two groups. A complementary meta-analysis of six studies was also performed. Patients in the transradial group were younger (P=0.039), more often male (P=0.002) and had lower GRACE and CRUSADE scores (P=0.003 and 0.001, respectively) and rates of cardiac arrest before PCI (P=0.009) and mechanical ventilation (P=0.006). Rates of PCI success were similar. At a mean follow-up of 756 days, death occurred in 40 (54.1%) patients in the transradial group versus 22 (81.5%) in the transfemoral group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.84; P=0.012). The transradial approach was associated with reduced rates of death/MI/stroke (adjusted HR: 0.53, 95%CI: 0.31-0.91; P=0.02) and major bleeding (adjusted HR: 0.34, 95%CI: 0.13-0.87; P=0.02). The meta-analysis confirmed the benefit of transradial access in terms of mortality (relative risk [RR]: 0.63, 95%CI: 0.58-0.68) and major bleeding (RR: 0.43, 95%CI: 0.32-0.59). The transradial approach in the setting of PCI for ischaemic CS is associated with a dramatic reduction in mortality, ischaemic and bleeding events, and should be preferred to the transfemoral approach in radial expert centres.

Impact of thrombus aspiration during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

To assess the impact on in-hospital and long-term survival of thrombus aspiration (TA) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). From September 2001 to May 2010 we collected data from 155 patients affected with STEMI complicated by CS undergoing PPCI (12.4% of all PPCI) including 70 patients (45.2%) in TA group and 85 patients (54.8%) in conventional PCI group. Patients in TA group were more likely to have right ventricular infarction (24.3% vs 5.9%, p=0.002), higher mean left ventricular ejection fraction (40% ± 9% vs 35% ± 7%, p<0.0001) and lower left main coronary artery occlusion (2.8% vs 21.2%, p=0.002). TA was associated with a lower rate of in-hospital and long-term mortality (31.4% vs 48.2%, p=0.05 and 42.8% vs 64.7%, p=0.01 respectively) at a mean follow-up time of 6.1 ± 2.1 years. At multivariate analysis the only independent predictor of in-hospital and long-term survival was the procedural success (HR 0.18 95% CI 0.025-0.31, p=0.03 and HR 0.46 95% CI 0.09-0.74, p=0.034 respectively). In this retrospective study TA, performed during PPCI for STEMI complicated by CS, was not an independent predictor of in-hospital and long-term survival.

Transradial percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock: A single-center experience

Use of the transradial approach (TRA) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has increased in recent years. TRA has a lower mortality rate than the transfemoral approach (TFA) in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Comparative studies have systematically excluded patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). We performed a prospective, observational registry study of consecutive patients undergoing emergent revascularization between February 2007 and January 2012. An analysis of the clinical evolution of patients with CS during hospitalization was performed. Of 1,400 emergency procedures, 122 had CS, of which 80 underwent PCI by TRA (65.6%) and 42 underwent PCI by TFA (34.3%). The main reason for choosing TFA was the absence of radial pulse (54.9%). Mortality (64.3% vs 32.5%, P = .001), serious access site complications (11.9% vs 2.5%, P = .03), access site complications requiring blood transfusion (7.1% vs 0%, P = .04), and major adverse cardiac events (death, infarction, stroke, serious bleeding, and postanoxic encephalopathy) (73.8% vs 43.8%, P = .001) were greater in patients treated by TFA. In the multivariate analysis, TRA was a predictor of mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.39 [0.15-0.97]); other predictive factors were age ≥75 years (3.47 [1.35-8.92]), previous treatment with diuretics (3.67 [1.21-11.12]), and success of the procedure (0.07 [0.02-0.24]). Transradial approach for PCI is possible and safe in up to two-thirds of patients with CS. Absence of radial pulse was the main factor preventing use of TRA. In multivariate analysis, TRA was associated with a lower risk of mortality.

Magnesium intake and cardiovascular disease mortality: A meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies

[1] Roger VL. Myocardial infarction outcomes: “the times, they are a-changing...”. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Nov 2010;3(6):568–70. [2] Forman DE, Rich MW, Alexander KP, et al. Cardiac care for older adults. Time for a new paradigm. J Am Coll Cardiol May 3 2011;57(18):1801–10. [3] Movahed M-R, John J, HashemzadehM, Jamal MM, HashemzadehM. Trends in the age adjustedmortality fromacute STsegment elevationmyocardial infarction I theUnited States (1988–2004) based on race, gender, infarct location and comorbidities. Am J Cardiol 2009;104:1030–4. [4] Krumholz HM, Wang Y, Chen J, et al. Reduction in acute myocardial infarction mortality in the United States: risk-standardized mortality rates from 1995–2006. JAMA 2009;302:767–73. [5] Kostis WJ, Deng Y, Pantazopoulos JS, Moreyra AE, Kostis JB, Myocardial Infarction Data Acquisition System (MIDAS14) Study Group. Trends in mortality of acute myocardial infarction after discharge from the hospital. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Nov 2010;3(6):581–9. [6] Gili M, Sala J, Lopez J, et al. Impact of comorbidities on in-hospital mortality from acute myocardial infarction, 2003–2009. [Article in English, Spanish]Rev Esp Cardiol Dec 2011;64(12):1130–7. [7] EuropeanAssociation for Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions,WijnsW, KolhP, et al. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 2010 Oct;31(20):2501–55. [8] Valente S, Lazzeri C, Vecchio S, et al. Predictors of in-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock. Int J Cardiol 2007;114(2):176–82. [9] Lazzeri C, Sori A, ChiostriM, Gensini GF, Valente S. Prognostic role of insulin resistance as assessed by homeostatic model assessment index in the acute phase of myocardial infarction in nondiabetic patients submitted to percutaneous coronary intervention. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2009;26(10):856–62. [10] Lazzeri C, Valente S, Chiostri M, Picariello C, Gensini GF. Correlates of acute insulin resistance in the early phase of non-diabetic ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Diab Vasc Dis Res Jan 2011;8(1):35–42. [11] Lazzeri C, Valente S, Chiostri M, Picariello C, Gensini GF. Acute glucose dysmetabolism in the elderly with ST elevation myocardial infarction submitted to mechanical revascularization. Int J Cardiol 2012;155(1):66–9. [12] Sanchis J, Nunez J, Bodi V, et al. Influence of comorbid conditions on one-year outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. Mayo Clin Proc Apr 2011;86(4):291–6. [13] Masoudi FA, Foody JM, Havranek EP, et al. Trends in acute myocardial infarction in 4 US states between 1992 and 2001: clinical characteristics, quality of care, and outcomes. Circulation 2006;114:2806–14. [14] Setoguchi S, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Mittleman MA, Levin R, Windelmayer WC. Improvements in long-term mortality after myocardial infarction and increased use of cardiovascular drugs after discharge: a 10-year trend analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:1247–54.

Percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock complicating acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction—a single centre experience

BackgroundMortality in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) approaches 70 – 80%, regardless of the type of pharmacological treatment. Early revascularisation improves survival in AMI with CS. Our aim is to assess the predictors of mid-term outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and CS. MethodsForty-one patients who underwent primary or rescue PCI for CS were analysed comparing their baseline, angiographic, PCI data, 30-day and 1-year survival. ResultsThere were no significant differences between survivors and non-survivors in baseline characters, except for more number of transfer admissions (P= 0.0005), and cardiopulmonary resuscitations (P= 0.015) in the later group. The mean time between myocardial infarction (MI) onset to shock and MI onset to revascularisation were 12.8 ± 12.9 hours and 17.0 ± 16.8 hours, respectively. Patients with better pre-procedure thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow in the infarct-related artery (IRA) had better survival (P= 0.0005). Successful PCI was achieved in 48.8% of patients. The 30-day mortality was 56.1% and all were prior to hospital discharge. Patients with successful PCI had better short-term survival in comparison with patients with failed PCI (80% vs 9.6%). Eighteen patients who survived at 30 days were followed up for 12–72 months (mean 28.5 ± 5.4 months). Fifteen patients survived at 1 year after PCI and all were in good functional status. ConclusionMortality remains high even with PCI. Achieving IRA patency with TIMI 3 flow is the main determinant of survival. Survival and functional status are good in patients who are discharged from hospital.

Routine upfront abciximab versus standard periprocedural therapy in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock: The PRAGUE-7 Study. An open randomized multicentre study

The outcome of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated with cardiogenic shock is poor. The aim of this study was to analyse, whether upfront abciximab administration could improve the outcomes of cardiogenic shock. This multicentre open trial randomized 80 patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock expected to undergo primary PCI into group A (routine upfront-pre-procedural-abciximab bolus followed by 12-h abciximab infusion) and group B (standard therapy). The study primary objective was 30-day combined outcome (death/reinfarction/stroke/new severe renal failure). PCI was technically successful in 90% (A) versus 87.5% (B) patients. Abciximab was used in 100% (A) versus 35% (B). The primary endpoint occurred in 17 group A patients (42.5%) and 11 group B patients (27.5%, P = 0.24). Ejection fraction among survivors after 30 days was 44 ± 11% (A) versus 41 ± 12% (B, P = 0.205). Major bleeding occurred in 17.5% (A) versus 7.5% (B, P = 0.310). No differences (A versus B) were found in TIMI-flow and MBG after PCI. This study did not show any benefit from routine pre-procedural abciximab when compared with a selective abciximab use during the intervention in patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing primary PCI. However, small sample size of the trial preclude any definitive conclusion, a larger prospective, randomized, multicentered trial is needed.

Comparison of Hospital Mortality With Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation Insertion Before vs After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction

Abstract. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) are established treatment modalities in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. We hypothesized that the insertion of the IABP before primary PCI might result in better survival of patients with cardiogenic shock compared with postponing the insertion until after primary PCI. We, therefore, retrospectively studied 48 patients who had undergone primary PCI with IABP because of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (26 patients received the IABP before and 22 patients after primary PCI). No significant differences were present in the baseline clinical characteristics between the 2 groups. The mean number of diseased vessels was greater in the group of patients treated with the IABP before primary PCI (2.8±0.5 vs 2.3±0.7, P=.012), but the difference in the number of treated vessels was not significant. The peak creatine kinase and creatine kinase-MB levels were lower in patients treated with the IABP before primary PCI (median, 1077; interquartile range, 438–2067 vs median, 3299; interquartile range, 695–6834; P=.047 and median, 95; interquartile range, 34–196 vs median, 192; interquartile range, 82–467; P=.048, respectively). In-hospital mortality and the overall incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were significantly lower in the group of patients receiving the IABP before primary PCI (19% vs 59% and 23% vs 77%, P=.007 and P=.0004, respectively). Multivariate analysis identified renal failure (odds ratio, 15.2; 95% confidence interval, 3.13–73.66) and insertion of the IABP after PCI (odds ratio, 5.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.09–24.76) as the only independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. In conclusion, the results of the present study suggest that patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction who undergo primary PCI assisted by IABP have a more favorable in-hospital outcome and lower in-hospital mortality than patients who receive IABP after PCI. Abdel-Wahab M, Saad M, Kynast J, et al. Comparison of hospital mortality with intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation insertion before versus after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2010;105:967–971.

Effect of Multivessel Coronary Disease With or Without Concurrent Chronic Total Occlusion on One-Year Mortality in Patients Treated With Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Cardiogenic Shock

Despite early revascularization, mortality remains high in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock. It has been shown that the effect of multivessel disease (MVD) on mortality in patients with STEMI treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention is mainly caused by the presence of chronic total occlusion (CTO) in a noninfarct-related coronary artery. Whether this association also exists in patients with STEMI with cardiogenic shock is unknown. In our institution, 292 consecutive patients with STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock were admitted from 1997 to 2005 and treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were classified as having single vessel disease, MVD without CTO, and CTO. Cox regression analysis was used for multivariate analysis. The 1-year mortality rate of patients with single-vessel disease, MVD, and CTO was 31%, 47%, and 63%, respectively. After adjustment for possible confounders, MVD alone was not an independent predictor of 1-year mortality (hazard ratio 1.5, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 2.3, p = 0.07). In contrast, CTO in a noninfarct-related artery was an independent predictor of 1-year mortality (hazard ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 3.1, p <0.01). In conclusion, the presence of CTO in a non-infarct-related artery was an independent predictor of 1-year mortality. In contrast, MVD alone lost its predictive significance after multivariate analysis.

Comparison of Hospital Mortality With Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation Insertion Before Versus After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) are established treatment modalities in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. We hypothesized that the insertion of the IABP before primary PCI might result in better survival of patients with cardiogenic shock compared to postponing the insertion to after primary PCI. We, therefore, retrospectively studied 48 patients who had undergone primary PCI with IABP because of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (26 patients received the IABP before and 22 patients after primary PCI). No significant differences were present in the baseline clinical characteristics between the 2 groups. The mean number of diseased vessels was greater in the group of patients treated with the IABP before primary PCI (2.8 +/- 0.5 vs 2.3 +/- 0.7, p = 0.012), but the difference in the number of treated vessels was not significant. The peak creatine kinase and creatine kinase -MB levels were lower in patients treated with the IABP before primary PCI (median 1,077, interquartile range 438 to 2067 vs median 3,299, interquartile range 695 to 6,834, p = 0.047, and median 95, interquartile range 34 to 196 vs median 192, interquartile range 82 to 467, p = 0.048, respectively). In-hospital mortality and the overall incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were significantly lower in the group of patients receiving the IABP before primary PCI (19% vs 59% and 23% vs 77%, p = 0.007 and p = 0.0004, respectively). Multivariate analysis identified renal failure (odds ratio 15.2, 95% confidence interval 3.13 to 73.66) and insertion of the IABP after PCI (odds ratio 5.2, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 24.76) as the only independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. In conclusion, the results of the present study suggest that patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction who undergo primary PCI assisted by IABP have a more favorable in-hospital outcome and lower in-hospital mortality than patients who receive IABP after PCI.