Key result
Stent strategy and IABP show no mortality difference in left main PCI for cardiogenic shock.
Why the study?
Evidence on clinical outcomes according to revascularization strategies for PCI of left main disease in patients with cardiogenic shock remains scarce.
What are the short-term clinical outcomes of different PCI strategies for unprotected left main coronary disease in patients with cardiogenic shock?
Cohort (n=78)
Yes
What are the short-term clinical outcomes of different PCI strategies for unprotected left main coronary disease in patients with cardiogenic shock?
In patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing left main PCI, short-term mortality is high (50%), and final TIMI flow <3 is associated with worse outcomes, while 2-stent strategies and IABP use did not significantly impact mortality.
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of left main (LM) disease in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) represents a clinical challenge. Evidence on clinical outcomes according to revascularization strategies in this scenario remains scarce. The objective was to investigate the short-term outcomes according to treatment strategies for this population. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 78 consecutive patients who underwent PCI of LM in established CS at two experienced centers. Characteristics of PCI and short-term clinical outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: LM stenosis was considered the culprit lesion in 49 patients (62.8%). In the remaining cases, LM stenosis was treated after successful PCI of the culprit vessel because of persistent CS. The majority of patients presented complex coronary anatomy (43.6% had Syntax score > 32). Complete revascularization was performed in 34.6%; a 2-stents technique in the LM bifurcation was used in 12.8% and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in 73.1%. In-hospital mortality was 48.7%. At 90 days follow-up it was 50% without differences between 1 or 2 stent LM bifurcation-techniques (p = .319). Mortality was higher in patients with partial revascularization and residual Syntax score ≥ 15 (p < .05 by univariate analysis), and in those with TIMI flow<3 in the left coronary artery at the end of PCI (p < .05 by multivariate analysis). There were no significant differences in the use of IABP in relation to 90-day mortality (p = .92). CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting with cardiogenic shock and LM disease, neither 2-stents strategy in the LM nor use of IABP displayed a reduced short-term mortality. However, patients with final TIMI flow <3 presented higher short-term mortality in our series.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Castro‐Mejía et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Left main coronary disease in cardiogenic shock (n=78). PCI treatment strategies (1 vs 2 stents, IABP use) vs. Alternative strategies was evaluated on 90-day mortality. In patients with cardiogenic shock and left main disease, 90-day mortality was 50%, with higher mortality for final TIMI flow <3 (p<0.05) but no difference by 1- vs 2-stent strategy or IABP use.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: