Key result
Stent choice (drug-eluting versus bare-metal) likely does not affect mortality or reinfarction in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
Why the study?
Does drug-eluting stent use reduce mortality or reinfarction compared to bare-metal stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock?
Does drug-eluting stent use reduce mortality or reinfarction compared to bare-metal stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock?
In patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, the choice between drug-eluting and bare-metal stents likely does not impact mortality or reinfarction.
Commentary on: Ledwoch J, Fuernau G, Desch S, et al . Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. Heart 2017;103:1177–84. Early revascularisation improves acute and long-term outcomes of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). However, which type of stent to use for revascularisation remains controversial. Earlier small single-centre non-randomised study and registry data concluded that a drug-eluting stent (DES) is superior to a bare metal stent (BMS) as it improved clinical outcomes in these patients.1 2 Current European Society Guidelines recommend the use of DES, while American Society guidelines do not. This study examined the impact of BMS versus DES use on clinical outcomes in patients who had participated in the previously reported the Intra-aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) in Cardiogenic Shock II Trial (IABP-SHOCK II) which showed …
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rousan et al. (2017) conducted an editorial in Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Drug-eluting stent (DES) vs. Bare metal stent (BMS) was evaluated on Mortality or reinfarction. Stent choice (drug-eluting versus bare-metal) likely does not affect mortality or reinfarction in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: