Key result
Cardiogenic shock in AMI is linked to a ~9-fold higher in-hospital mortality versus uncomplicated cases.
Why the study?
What are the in-hospital outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock compared to those without?
Cohort (n=1,003)
What are the in-hospital outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock compared to those without?
Absolute Event Rate: 33.3% vs 3.6%
p-value: p=<0.0001
In-hospital mortality remains high (33.3%) in patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock despite a high procedural success rate of PCI (82.26%).
High mortality persists in AMI with cardiogenic shock despite PCI; leaves open whether adjunctive strategies improve outcomes in trials.
The purpose of this study was to present the outcomes of treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) among patients hospitalized from 1999 through 2006. The study enrolled 1003 patients. Group 1 comprised 87 patients presenting with AMI complicated with CS, whereas Group 2 comprised 916 patients presenting with AMI without CS symptoms. Determination of invasive treatment was according to standard guidelines. The endpoint comprised death, stroke, and reocclusion/reinfarction. Follow-up was confined to the intra-hospital period. CS was observed more frequently in cases of ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and right ventricular MI. The transportation and door-to-needle time were shorter in Group 1. CS patients were characterized by a more severe coronary artery disease, higher maximal creatinine kinase levels, lower global ejection fractions, and increased incidence of atrioventricular conduction disorders. The efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was 82.26% in Group 1 and 95.03% in Group 2. Death occurred in 33.3% of CS patients and in 3.6% of AMI patients (p<0.0001). Our study proved that in a short-term follow-up, PCI is a procedure of high efficacy in CS patients. The short-term follow-up precluded a conclusion of statistically significant benefits from the shortening of the transportation and door-to-needle time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kawecki et al. (2010) conducted a cohort in Acute myocardial infarction (n=1,003). Cardiogenic shock vs. AMI without cardiogenic shock was evaluated on Death, stroke, and reocclusion/reinfarction (death reported) (p=<0.0001). Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction was associated with a significantly higher in-hospital death rate compared to AMI without cardiogenic shock (33.3% vs 3.6%, p<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: