Key result
Three-vessel disease (≥75% occlusion) was present in 68% of patients dying from cardiogenic shock compared to 35% of those dying from refractory congestive heart failure (P<0.02).
Why the study?
Does the extent of coronary artery disease differ between patients dying from cardiogenic shock versus refractory congestive heart failure after acute myocardial infarction?
Population
70 patients dying from pump failure after acute myocardial infarction
Comparison
Cardiogenic shock post-AMI vs Refractory congestive heart failure post-AMI
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
CAD extent may influence post-AMI death mode; leaves open causal role and need for prospective studies on management.
Observational (n=70)
Does the extent of coronary artery disease differ between patients dying from cardiogenic shock versus refractory congestive heart failure after acute myocardial infarction?
Absolute Event Rate: 68% vs 35%
p-value: p=<0.02
Patients dying from cardiogenic shock post-AMI have significantly more extensive multi-vessel coronary artery disease compared to those dying from refractory congestive heart failure.
Wackers et al. (1976) conducted an observational in Pump failure after acute myocardial infarction (n=70). Cardiogenic shock vs. Refractory congestive heart failure was evaluated on Three-vessel disease (≥75% occlusion) (p=<0.02). Three-vessel disease (≥75% occlusion) was present in 68% of patients dying from cardiogenic shock compared to 35% of those dying from refractory congestive heart failure (P<0.02).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: