Key result
NSTEMI is linked to similar in-hospital mortality as STEMI in cardiogenic shock.
Why the study?
Optimal therapy for patients with cardiogenic shock complicating non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is unknown, especially given their high-risk or low-risk profiles.
Does non-ST-segment elevation MI compared to ST-segment elevation MI affect in-hospital mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock?
Observational (n=881)
Does non-ST-segment elevation MI compared to ST-segment elevation MI affect in-hospital mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock?
Odds Ratio: 1.3 (95% CI 0.83–2.02)
Absolute Event Rate: 62.5% vs 60.4%
p-value: p=0.252
Patients with cardiogenic shock complicating NSTEMI have a higher baseline risk profile but similar in-hospital mortality compared to those with STEMI, suggesting they may benefit from similarly aggressive early angiography and reperfusion.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (MI). BACKGROUND: Such patients represent a high-risk (ST-segment depression) or low-risk (normal or nonspecific electrocardiographic findings) group for whom optimal therapy, particularly in the setting of shock, is unknown. METHODS: We assessed characteristics and outcomes of 881 patients with CS due to predominant left ventricular (LV) dysfunction in the SHOCK Trial Registry. RESULTS: Patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI (n = 152) were significantly older and had significantly more prior MI, heart failure, azotemia, bypass surgery, and peripheral vascular disease than patients with ST-elevation MI (n = 729). On average, the groups had similar in-hospital LV ejection fractions (approximately 30%), but patients with non-ST-elevation MI had a lower highest creatine kinase and were more likely to have triple-vessel disease. Among patients selected for coronary angiography, the left circumflex artery was the culprit vessel in 34.6% of non-ST-elevation versus 13.4% of ST-elevation MI patients (p = 0.001). Despite having more recurrent ischemia (25.7% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.058), non-ST-elevation patients underwent angiography less often (52.6% vs. 64.1%, p = 0.010). The proportion undergoing revascularization was similar (36.8% for non-ST-elevation vs. 41.9% ST-elevation MI, p = 0.277). In-hospital mortality also was similar in the two groups (62.5% for non-ST-elevation vs. 60.4% ST-elevation MI). After adjustment, ST-segment elevation MI did not independently predict in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 2.02; p = 0.252). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CS and non-ST-segment elevation MI have a higher-risk profile than shock patients with ST-segment elevation, but similar in-hospital mortality. More recurrent ischemia and less angiography represent opportunities for earlier intervention, and early reperfusion therapy for circumflex artery occlusion should be considered when non-ST-elevation MI causes CS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jacobs et al. (2000) conducted an observational in Cardiogenic shock complicating non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (n=881). Non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction vs. ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction was evaluated on In-hospital mortality (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.83-2.02, p=0.252). In patients with cardiogenic shock, non-ST-segment elevation MI was associated with similar in-hospital mortality compared to ST-elevation MI (62.5% vs 60.4%; adjusted OR for STEMI 1.30, P=0.252).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: