Survival benefit from early revascularization in elderly patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: A cohort study

Journal of Invasive Cardiology

Volumn 21, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 305-312

  Amin, Amit P ^a,c   Nathan, Sandeep ^b   Prodduturi, Prathima ^a   D'Silva, Oliver ^b   Gupta, Akshay ^b   Kumar, Arun ^b   Senter, Shaun ^b   Mamtani, Manju ^c   Kulkarni, Hemant ^c   Klein, Lloyd W ^b   Kelly, Russell F ^a,b  

^a Jr Hospital of Cook County   (United States)

^b RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c Lata Medical Research Foundation   (India)

Author keywords

Cardiogenic shock; Early invasive therapy; Elderly; Primary percutaneous coronary intervention; Revascularization; ST segment elevation myocardial infarction

Indexed keywords

ACUTE HEART INFARCTION; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CARDIOGENIC SHOCK; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELDERLY CARE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEART MUSCLE REVASCULARIZATION; HUMAN; INVASIVE PROCEDURE; KAPLAN MEIER METHOD; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MORTALITY; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; POISSON DISTRIBUTION; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; ST SEGMENT ELEVATION; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SURVIVAL; AGE; COMPLICATION; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SHOCK, CARDIOGENIC; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TIME; TRANSLUMINAL CORONARY ANGIOPLASTY; UNITED STATES; VERY ELDERLY;

AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANGIOPLASTY, BALLOON, CORONARY; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; ILLINOIS; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; MYOCARDIAL REVASCULARIZATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SHOCK, CARDIOGENIC; TIME FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 68049085673     PISSN: 10423931     EISSN: 15572501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Antoniucci D, Valenti R, Migliorini A, et al. Comparison of impact of emergency percutaneous revascularization on outcome of patients > or =75 to those < 75 years of age with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol 2003;91:1458-1461, A6.
2. Assali AR, Iakobishvili Z, Zafrir N, et al. Characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction treated by emergent coronary angioplasty. Int J Cardiovasc Intervent 2005;7:193-198. (Pubitemid 43033274)
3. Dauerman HL, Goldberg RJ, Malinski M, et al. Outcomes and early revascularization for patients > or = 65 years of age with cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol 2001;87:844-848. (Pubitemid 32244202)
4. Farkouh ME, Ramanathan K, Aymong ED, et al. An early revascularization strategy is associated with a survival benefit for diabetic patients in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. Clin Cardiol 2006;29:204-210.
5. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Godfrey E, et al. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK: An international randomized trial of emergency PTCA/CABG-trial design. The SHOCK trial study group. Am Heart J 1999;137:313-321.
6. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 2006;295:2511-2515. (Pubitemid 43854966)
7. Karcz M, Bekta P, Kepka C, et al. Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. In-hospital and mid-term results of invasive treatment in the National Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw-Anin. Kardiol Pol 2003;58:366-374; Discussion: 374. (Pubitemid 36735397)
8. Klein LW, Shaw RE, Krone RJ, et al. Mortality after emergent percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock secondary to acute myocardial infarction and usefulness of a mortality prediction model. Am J Cardiol 2005;96:35-41. (Pubitemid 40853936)
9. Mayich J, Cox JL, Buth KJ, Legare JF. Unequal access to interventional cardiac care in Nova Scotia in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Can J Cardiol 2006;22:331-335.
10. Prasad A, Lennon RJ, Rihal CS, et al. Outcomes of elderly patients with cardiogenic shock treated with early percutaneous revascularization. Am Heart J 2004;147:1066-1070. (Pubitemid 38880966)
11. Srimahachota S, Boonyaratavej S, Udayachalerm W, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: Immediate and late outcomes. J Med Assoc Thai 2001;84:1449-11154
12. Sutton AG, Finn P, Hall JA, et al. Predictors of outcome after percutaneous treatment for cardiogenic shock. Heart 2005;91:339-344. (Pubitemid 40299215)
13. Tedesco JV, Williams BA, Wright RS, et al. Baseline comorbidities and treatment strategy in elderly patients are associated with outcome of cardiogenic shock in a community-based population. Am Heart J 2003;146:472-478.
14. Wang YC, Hwang JJ, Hung CS, et a. Outcome of primary percutaneous coronary intervention in octogenarians with acute myocardial infarction. J Formos Med Assoc 2006;105:451-458. (Pubitemid 43986078)
15. Zeymer U, Vogt A, Zahn R, et al. Predictors of in-hospital mortality in 1333 patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); Results of the primary PCI registry of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausarzte (ALKK). Eur Heart J 2004;25:322-328. (Pubitemid 38295441)
16. Babaev A, Frederick PD, Pasta DJ, et al. Trends in management and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. JAMA 2005;294:448-454. (Pubitemid 41124177)
17. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, White HD, et al. One-year survival following early revascularization for cardiogenic shock. JAMA 2001;285:190-192. (Pubitemid 32048521)
18. Antman EM, Anbe DT, Armstrong PW, et al; American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines; Canadian Cardiovascular Society. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (committee to revise the 1999 guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction). Circulation 2004;110:e82-e292.
19. Antman EM, Hand M, Armstrong PW, et al. 2007 Focused update of the ACC/AHA 2004 guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2008;117:296-329.
20. Dzavik V, Sleeper LA, Picard MH, et al. Outcome of patients aged > or=75 years in the SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries in cardiogenic shocK (SHOCK) trial: Do elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock respond differently to emergent revascularization? Am Heart J 2005;149:1128-1134. (Pubitemid 40848160)
21. Smith PG. Epidemiological methods to evaluate vaccine efficacy. Br Med Bull 1988;44:679-690.
22. Dagdelen S, Soydinc S, Ergelen M, Caglar N. Resolution of a spontaneous coronary artery thrombus with a new antiplatelet agent. Int Angiol 2001;20:244-247. (Pubitemid 33076877)
23. Gallo R, Badimon JJ, Fuster V. Pathobiology of coronary ischemic events: Clinical implications. Adv Intern Med 1998;43:203-232.
24. Shah RA, Khanal S, Kugelmass A. Spontaneous late thrombolysis of an occluded saphenous vein graft subsequent to acute myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention to the native culprit vessel. J Interv Cardiol 2006;19:178-182.
25. Pressley JC, Patrick CH. Frailty bias in comorbidity risk adjustments of community-dwelling elderly populations. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:753-760.
26. White HD, Assmann SF, Sanborn TA, et al. Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting after acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Results from the Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial. Circulation 2005;112:1992-2001. (Pubitemid 41377419)
27. Hata M, Shiono M, Sezai A, et al. Outcome of emergency conventional coronary surgery for acute coronary syndrome due to left main coronary disease. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;12:28-31.
28. Bur A, Bayegan K, Holzer M, et al. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in the emergency department: A 7-year review and analysis of predictors of survival. Resuscitation 2002;53:259-264. (Pubitemid 34607727)
29. Elahi MM, Chetty GK, Kirke R, et al. Complications related to intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiac surgery: A decade later. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2005;29:591-594. (Pubitemid 40614341)
30. Moulopoulos S, Stamatelopoulos S, Petrou P. Intraaortic balloon assistance in intractable cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J 1986;7:396-403. (Pubitemid 16120798)
31. Ferguson JJ 3rd, Cohen M, Freedman RJ Jr, et al. The current practice of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation: Results from the Benchmark Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;38:1456-1462.
32. Webb JG, Lowe AM, Sanborn TA, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock in the SHOCK trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;42:1380-1386. (Pubitemid 37267276)
33. Dauerman HL, Goldberg RJ, White K, et al. Revascularization, stenting, and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol 2002;90:838-842.
34. Iakobishvili Z, Behar S, Boyko V, et al. Does current treatment of cardiogenic shock complicating the acute coronary syndromes comply with guidelines? Am Heart J 2005;149:98-103. (Pubitemid 40126496)