Support In Myocardial Infarction Research Articles

Extracorporeal Life Support in Myocardial Infarction: New Highlights.

Background and Objectives: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a potentially severe complication following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The use of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in these patients has risen significantly over the past two decades, especially when conventional treatments fail. Our aim is to provide an overview of the role of VA-ECMO in CS complicating AMI, with the most recent literature highlights. Materials and Methods: We have reviewed the current VA-ECMO practices with a particular focus on CS complicating AMI. The largest studies reporting the most significant results, i.e., overall clinical outcomes and management of the weaning process, were identified in the PubMed database from 2019 to 2024. Results: The literature about the use of VA-ECMO in CS complicating AMI primarily has consisted of observational studies until 2019, generating the need for randomized controlled trials. The EURO-SHOCK trial showed a lower 30-day all-cause mortality rate in patients receiving VA-ECMO compared to those receiving standard therapy. The ECMO-CS trial compared immediate VA-ECMO implementation with early conservative therapy, with a similar mortality rate between the two groups. The ECLS-SHOCK trial, the largest randomized controlled trial in this field, found no significant difference in mortality at 30 days between the ECMO group and the control group. Recent studies suggest the potential benefits of combining left ventricular unloading devices with VA-ECMO, but they also highlight the increased complication rate, such as bleeding and vascular issues. The routine use of VA-ECMO in AMI complicated by CS cannot be universally supported due to limited evidence and associated risks. Ongoing trials like the Danger Shock, Anchor, and Recover IV trials aim to provide further insights into the management of AMI complicated by CS. Conclusions: Standardizing the timing and indications for initiating mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is crucial and should guide future trials. Multidisciplinary approaches tailored to individual patient needs are essential to minimize complications from unnecessary MCS device initiation.

TCTAP A-044 Early Mechanical Circulatory Support in Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: A Nationwide Experience in Comparison to International Experience

TCTAP A-044 Early Mechanical Circulatory Support in Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: A Nationwide Experience in Comparison to International Experience

A Warm Welcome to The First Issue of JSCAI

A Warm Welcome to The First Issue of JSCAI

Mechanical Circulatory Support in Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: Impact of Sex and Timing.

Sex differences in presentation, treatment, and outcomes persist in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS). Sex-based outcomes of patients with AMICS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD) support are poorly defined. From January 2017 to August 2019, consecutive patients undergoing PCI who received Impella support within 48​hours of myocardial infarction were enrolled in the prospective RECOVER III postmarket registry. In-hospital survival and predictors of mortality were compared by sex. A total of 358 patients (276 men and 82 women) were included. Women had lower baseline mean arterial pressure and shorter duration of pLVAD support compared with men. In-hospital adverse events were similar in women and men, including mortality (54% versus 46%, P = .25), major bleeding (11% versus 10%, P = .83), and vascular complications requiring surgery (8.5% versus 4%, P = .10). Women had better survival with pre-PCI versus post-PCI pLVAD implantation (59% versus 34%, P = .03), whereas survival in men was similar regardless of pre- versus post-PCI pLVAD support (56% versus 50%, P = .39).The number of inotrope/vasopressor use pre-pLVAD was the strongest predictor of mortality in women (OR 3.03, P = .01) but not in men (OR 1.18, P = .25). Survival of patients with AMICS treated with PCI and Impella support was 52% at hospital discharge and was similar for women and men. Women with AMICS may derive greater benefit from early pLVAD support prior to escalation of inotrope/vasopressors and had no evidence of increased risk of access-related complications.

Hospital Variation in the Utilization of Short-Term Nondurable Mechanical Circulatory Support in Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.

Limited knowledge exists on inter-hospital variation in the utilization of short-term, nondurable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). Hospitalizations for MI with CS in 2014 in a nationally representative all-payer database were included. The proportion of hospitalizations for MI with CS using MCS (MCS ratio) and in-hospital mortality were evaluated. Hospital characteristics and outcomes were compared across quartiles of MCS usage. Of 1813 hospitals evaluated, 1440 (79.4%) performed ≥10 percutaneous coronary interventions annually. Of these, 1064 (73.9%) had at least one code for MCS. Forty-one percent of hospitals did not use MCS. The median (interquartile range) proportion of MCS use among admissions for MI with CS was 33.3% (0.0%-50.0%). High MCS utilizing hospitals were larger ( P<0.001). Eighty-five percent (2808/3301) of MCS use was intra-aortic balloon pump. There was significant variation in receipt of MCS at different hospitals (median odds ratio of receiving MCS at 2 random hospitals: 1.58; 95% CI, 1.45-1.70). Adjusted in-hospital mortality was not different across quartiles of MCS use (Q4 versus Q1; odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77-1.16; P=0.58). Wide variation exists in hospital use of MCS for MI with CS, unexplained by patient characteristics. The predominant form of MCS use is intra-aortic balloon pump. Risk-adjusted mortality rates were not different between higher and lower MCS-utilizing hospitals.

Myocardial infarction: gender differences in coping and social support.

The aim of this review is to summarize current knowledge about gender differences in perceptions of coping and social support among patients who have experienced myocardial infarction. Women with coronary heart disease have physical, social and medical disadvantages compared with their male counterparts, which can influence their perception of recovery after cardiac events. No review has been found which focuses on gender differences in coping and social support in myocardial infarction patients. A computerized search was conducted using the keywords 'myocardial infarction', 'coping', 'gender differences' and 'social support'. Forty-one articles, published between 1990 and October 2002, were scrutinized. Two studies report that women used more coping strategies than men. Several qualitative studies found that women used a variety of coping strategies. Women minimized the impact of the disease, tended to delay in seeking treatment and did not want to bother others with their health problems. Household activities were important to them and aided their recovery. Men were more likely to involve their spouses in their recovery, and resuming work and keeping physically fit were important to them. Women tended to report that they had less social support up to 1 year after a myocardial infarction compared with men. They received less information about the disease and rehabilitation and experienced lack of belief in their heart problems from caregivers. Further, they received less assistance with household duties from informal caregivers. Men tended to report more support from their spouses than did women. Traditional gender-role patterns may influence the recovery of patients who have experienced myocardial infarction. Caregivers may need to be more sensitive to gender-specific needs with regard to risk profiles, social roles, and the patient's own role identity. For many women, especially older ones, household duties and family responsibilities may be an opportunity and a base for cardiac rehabilitation.