Early extracorporeal membrane oxygenator-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention improved 30-day clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated with profound cardiogenic shock

Critical Care Medicine

Volumn 38, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1810-1817

  Sheu, Jiunn Jye ^a   Tsai, Tzu Hsien ^c   Lee, Fan Yen ^a   Fang, Hsiu Yu ^c   Sun, Cheuk Kwan ^b   Leu, Steve ^c   Yang, Cheng Hsu ^c   Chen, Shyh Ming ^c   Hang, Chi Ling ^c   Hsieh, Yuan Kai ^c   Chen, Chien Jen ^c   Wu, Chiung Jen ^d   Yip, Hon Kan ^d  

^a Division of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery   (Taiwan)

^b Division of General Surgery   (Taiwan)

^c CHANG GUNG UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (Taiwan)

^d NONE

Author keywords

acute myocardial infarction; extracorporeal membrane oxygenator; profound cardiogenic shock

Indexed keywords

INOTROPIC AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; AORTA BALLOON; ARTICLE; BLOOD CLOT LYSIS; CARDIOGENIC SHOCK; CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXTRACORPOREAL OXYGENATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ST SEGMENT ELEVATION MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; SURVIVAL TIME; SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE; COMPLICATION; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; TRANSLUMINAL CORONARY ANGIOPLASTY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; ANGIOPLASTY, BALLOON, CORONARY; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; EXTRACORPOREAL MEMBRANE OXYGENATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; SHOCK, CARDIOGENIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77956226636     PISSN: 00903493     EISSN: 15300293     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181e8acf7     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb FG, et al: Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: For the shock investigators. N Engl J Med 1999; 341:625-634.
2. Yip HK, Wu CJ, Chang HW, et al: Comparison of impact of primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and primary stenting on short-term mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock and evaluation of prognostic determinants. Am J Cardiol 2001; 87:1184-1188.
3. Hollenberg SM: Cardiogenic shock. Crit Care Clin 2001; 17:391-410.
4. Killip T, Kimball JT: Treatment of myocardial infarction in a coronary care unit: A two year experience with 250 patients. Am J Cardiol 1967; 20:457-459.
5. Goldberg RJ, Gore JM, Alpert JS, et al: Cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: Incidence and mortality from a community-wide perspective, 1875 to. N Engl J Med 1991; 325:1117-1122.
6. Yip HK, Wu CJ, Chang HW, et al: Comparison of primary angioplasty and conservative treatment on short-and long-term outcome in octogenarian or older patients with acute myocardial infarction. Jpn Heart J 2002; 43: 463-474.
7. The GUSTO angiographic investigators: The effects of tissue plasminogen activator, streptokinase, or both on coronary-artery patency, ventricular function, and survival after acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 1993; 329: 1615-1622.
8. Simes RJ, Topol EJ, Holmes DR, et al: Link between the angiographic substudy and mortality outcomes in a large randomized trial of myocardial reperfusion: Importance of early and complete infarct artery reperfusion. Circulation 1995; 91:1923-1928.
9. Berger PB, Holmes DR, Stebbins AL, et al: Impact of an aggressive invasive cardiogenic shock in the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue plasminogen activator for Occluded coronary arteries (GUSTO-I) trial: An observational study. Circulation 1997; 96: 122-127.
10. Atoniucci D, Valenti R, Santoro GM, et al: Systemic direct angioplasty and stentsupported direct angioplasty therapy for car-diogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: In-hospital and long-term survival. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 31:294-300.
11. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, White HD, et al: One-year survival following early revascularization for cardiogenic shock. JAMA 2001; 285:190-192.
12. Doll N, Kiaii B, Borger M, et al: Five-year results of 219 consecutive patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory postoperative cardiogenic shock. Ann Thorac Surg 2004; 77:151-157.
13. Chen JS, Ko WJ, Yu HY, et al: Analysis of the outcome for patients experiencing myocardial infarction and cardiopulmonary resuscitation refractory to conventional therapies necessitating extracorporeal life support rescue. Crit Care Med 2006; 34:950-957.
14. Chen YS, Lin JW, Yu HY, et al: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation with assisted extracorporeal life-support versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults with in-hospital cardiac arrest: An observational study and propensity analysis. Lancet 2008; 372:554-561.
15. Hands ME, Ritherford JD, Muller JE, et al: The in-hospital development of cardiogenic shock after myocardial infarction: Incidence, predictors of occurrence, outcome and prognosis factors. J Am Coll Cardiol 1989; 14: 40-46.
16. Hochman JS, Buller CE, Sleeper LA, et al: Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: Etiology, management and outcome: A report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36: 1063-1070.
17. The Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (PAMI) stent pilot trial investigators. Prospective, multicenter study of the safety and feasibility of primary stenting in acute myocardial infarction: In-hospital and 30-day results of the PAMI stent pilot trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 31:23-30.
18. Stone GW, Grines CL, Browne KF, et al: Predictors of in-hospital and 6 month outcome after acute myocardial infarction in the reperfusion era: The Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (PAMI) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995; 25:370-377.
19. Yip HK, Chen MC, Chang HW, et al: Angiographic morphologic features of infarctrelated arteries and timely reperfusion in acute myocardial infarction: Predictors of slow-flow and no-reflow. Chest 2002; 122: 1322-1332.
20. Grines CL, Browne KF, Marco J, et al: A comparison of primary angioplasty with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993; 328:673-679.
21. Ito H, Maruyama A, Iwakura K, et al: Clinical implications of 'no reflow' phenomenon: A predictor of complications and left ventricular remodeling in reperfused anterior wall myocardial infarction. Circulation 1996; 93: 223-228.
22. Youssef AA, Change LT, Hang CL, et al: Level and value of interleukin-18 in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary coronary angioplasty. Circ J 2007; 71: 703-708.
23. Barron HV, Every NR, Parsons LS, et al: The use of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: Data from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. Am Heart J 2001; 141:933-939.
24. Sjauw KD, Engstrom AE, Marije M, et al: A systematic review and meta-analysis of intraaortic balloon pump therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Should we change the guidelines? Eur Heart J 2009; 30:459-468.
25. Cheng JM, den Uil CA, Hoeks SE, et al: Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices vs intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation for treatment of cardiogenic shock: A metaanalysis of controlled trials. Eur Heart J 2009; 30:2102-2108.
26. Management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. The Task Force on the Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2003; 24:28-66.
27. 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.
28. Henriques JPS: Percutaneous assist devices vs intra-aortic balloon pump for cardiogenic shock: Evidence under construction vs expert opinion. Euro Heart J 2010; 31:502-504