Why the study?
Does an initial approach only of the injury blamed for the acute event improve outcomes compared to multivessel percutaneous intervention in patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to acute coronary syndrome?
Does an initial approach only of the injury blamed for the acute event improve outcomes compared to multivessel percutaneous intervention in patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to acute coronary syndrome?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This perspective discusses the CULPRIT-SHOCK study, which demonstrated the benefit of culprit-lesion-only PCI over multivessel PCI in patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to acute coronary syndrome.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Júnior et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: