Management of cardiogenic shock complicating acute coronary syndromes

Heart

Volumn 99, Issue 21, 2013, Pages 1614-1623

  Tharmaratnam, Dushen ^a   Nolan, Jim ^b   Jain, Ajay ^a  

^a LONDON CHEST HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DOBUTAMINE; DOPAMINE; FIBRINOGEN RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST; INOTROPIC AGENT; NORADRENALIN;

ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME; ACUTE HEART INFARCTION; ANGIOCARDIOGRAPHY; APACHE; ARTICLE; CARDIOGENIC SHOCK; CAUSE OF DEATH; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT; CORONARY ARTERY RECANALIZATION; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; EXTRACORPOREAL CIRCULATION; FIBRINOLYTIC THERAPY; HEART CATHETER; HOSPITAL PATIENT; HUMAN; INTRAAORTIC BALLOON PUMP; ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE; MORTALITY; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESUSCITATION; RISK FACTOR; UNSPECIFIED SIDE EFFECT; VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICE;

ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME; BENCHMARKING; HUMANS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SHOCK, CARDIOGENIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84885182583     PISSN: 13556037     EISSN: 1468201X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302028     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Jeger RV, Radovanovic D, Hunziker P.R., et al Ten-year trends in the incidence and treatment of cardiogenic shock. Ann Intern Med 2008; 149: 618-26. ▶ The Swiss registry data demonstrated that admission rates with CS have remained essentially unchanged at 2% of ACS patients and that these patients account for more than a quarter of CS cases in ACS.
2. Wijns W, Kolh P, Danchin N., et al. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2010; 31: 2501-55.
3. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship J.C., et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 2011; 124: e574-651.
4. Goldberg RJ, Spencer FA, Gore J.M., et al Thirty-year trends (1975 to 2005) in the magnitude of, management of, and hospital death rates associated with cardiogenic shock in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a population-based perspective. Circulation 2009; 119: 1211-19.
5. Nguyen HL, Saczynski JS, Gore J.M., et al. Long-term trends in short-term outcomes in acute myocardial infarction. Am J Med 2011; 124: 939-46.
6. Prondzinsky R, Lemm H, Swyter M., et al. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the prospective, randomized IABP SHOCK Trial for attenuation of multiorgan dysfunction syndrome. Crit Care Med 2010; 38: 152-60.
7. Sleeper LA, Reynolds HR, White H.D., et al A severity scoring system for risk assessment of patients with cardiogenic shock: a report from the SHOCK Trial and Registry. Am Heart J 2010; 160: 443-50. ▶ This complex scoring system showed with stage 1 modelling (utilising patient clinical variables) that moderate and high risk patients have the most mortality benefit to gain from ERV, whereas with stage 2 modelling (utilising invasive haemodynamic data) that there was no difference in benefit across all risk groups.
8. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb J.G., et al Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 2006; 295: 2511-15. ▶ In this longer term follow-up of the original SHOCK trial patients, mortality benefit is shown to be maintained with ERV versus initial medical stabilisation, and the survival difference between the treatment groups remains virtually unchanged after 2 years (as demonstrated in figure 3 by the nearly parallel Kaplan-Meir plots after year 2) (Pubitemid 43854966)
9. Mehta RH, Lopes RD, Ballotta A, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass surgery for cardiogenic shock and multivessel coronary artery disease? Am Heart J 2010; 159: 141-7. ▶ Based upon three observational studies, this meta-analysis concluded that in CS patients with multivessel disease CABG may be preferable to PCI (especially where complete revascularisation by means of PCI is not possible), but that randomised trials in this setting are needed.
10. Bauer T, Zeymer U, Hochadel M., et al Use and outcomes of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (from the EHS-PCI Registry). Am J Cardiol 2012; 109: 941-6.
11. van der Schaaf RJ, Claessen BE, Vis M.M., et al. Effect of multivessel coronary disease with or without concurrent chronic total occlusion on one-year mortality in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol 2010; 105: 955-9.
12. Lee MS, Tseng CH, Barker C.M., et al Outcome after surgery and percutaneous intervention for cardiogenic shock and left main disease. Ann Thorac Surg 2008; 86: 29-34.
13. Montalescot G, Brieger D, Eagle K.A., et al Unprotected left main revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2009; 30: 2308-17.
14. Lee MS, Bokhoor P, Park S.J., et al Unprotected left main coronary disease and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a contemporary review and argument for percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2010; 3: 791-5. ▶ These experts argue the case for emergent PCI in the context of acute STEMI affecting the LMS with reduced antegrade flow and CS, noting that randomised trials comparing revascularisation by means of CABG in this context are unlikely to ever be feasible.
15. Sjauw KD, Engstrom AE, Vis M.M., et al A systematic review and meta-analysis of intra-aortic balloon pump therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: should we change the guidelines? Eur Heart J 2009; 30: 459-68. ▶ This paper comprised two meta-analyses: the first pertained to use of IABP in STEMI without CS while the second pertained to use of IABP in STEMI complicated by CS. The controversial results of the second meta-analysis (apparent higher mortality with IABP use in PPCI treated STEMI CS patients) were extensively debated, with the expectation that the IABP-SHOCK II randomised trial would finally address the issue of IABP benefit in STEMI patients with CS in this PPCI era.
16. Cheng JM, Valk SD, den Uil CA, et al Usefulness of intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation in patients with cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 2009; 104: 327-32.
17. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann F.J., et al Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 1287-96. ▶ For the proponents of IABP use in the context of CS complicating AMI, this was a disappointing outcome and guidelines may soon reflect a change in recommendation based upon this landmark trial result.
18. Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I., et al A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 52: 1584-8.
19. Kar B, Gregoric ID, Basra S.S., et al The percutaneous ventricular assist device in severe refractory cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 57: 688-96.
20. Westaby S, Anastasiadis K, Wieselthaler GM Cardiogenic shock in ACS. Part 2: role of mechanical circulatory support. Nat Rev Cardiol 2012; 9: 195-208.