Key result
Dedicated cardiac shock centers and standardized pathways may improve survival in AMICS.
Why the study?
Despite advances, cardiogenic shock secondary to acute myocardial infarction has increased in incidence with unchanged mortality near 50%, and best treatment strategies remain unclear.
Proposes systems of care and treatment pathways for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, emphasizing the potential benefit of early mechanical circulatory support.
Supports consideration of dedicated shock centers and standardized pathways; leaves open impact on outcomes pending randomized trials.
Despite advances over the past decade, the incidence of cardiogenic shock secondary to acute myocardial infarction has increased, with an unchanged mortality near 50%. Recent trials have not clarified the best strategies in treatment. While dedicated cardiac shock centers are being established, there are no standardized agreements on the utilization of mechanical circulatory support and the timeliness of percutaneous coronary intervention strategies. In some centers and prospective registries, outcomes after placement of advanced mechanical circulatory support prior to reperfusion therapy with percutaneous coronary intervention have been encouraging with improved survival. Here, we suggest systems of care with a treatment pathway for patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rab et al. (2018) conducted a review in Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Cardiac shock care centers and standardized treatment pathways was evaluated. Establishing dedicated cardiac shock care centers and standardized treatment pathways may improve survival for patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: