Key result
In-hospital myocardial revascularization was associated with a 56.2% long-term survival rate compared to 36.4% in nonrevascularized patients after acute MI with cardiogenic shock (p=0.277).
Why the study?
Does in-hospital myocardial revascularization improve long-term survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock?
Population
81 consecutive patients referred for management of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic…
Comparison
In-hospital myocardial revascularization (n=17) vs No in-hospital myocardial revascularization
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
mean 85 +/- 47 months
Authors
Loading...
Should not change revascularization practice in acute MI shock; leaves open long-term survival benefit.
Cohort (n=81)
No
Does in-hospital myocardial revascularization improve long-term survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock?
Absolute Event Rate: 56.2% vs 36.4%
p-value: p=0.277
Patients who survive the acute phase of myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock have a reasonable long-term survival rate, though a significant proportion develop heart failure.
Drakos et al. (2009) conducted a cohort in Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (n=81). In-hospital myocardial revascularization vs. Nonrevascularized patients was evaluated on Survival after discharge over a mean follow-up of 85 months (p=0.277). In-hospital myocardial revascularization was associated with a 56.2% long-term survival rate compared to 36.4% in nonrevascularized patients after acute MI with cardiogenic shock (p=0.277).
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: