Hotline 24/7: 0909384389

Share links:

Multivessel PCI has similar outcomes to culprit-vessel only PCI for cardiogenic shock patients when mechanical circulatory support used

Ngày 06/05/2020 09:00 | Lượt xem: 907

A new study has found no significant differences in hospital mortality between multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and culprit-vessel only PCI for the management of cardiogenic shock patients who had received early mechanical circulatory support. These findings suggest that, contrary to previous studies, multivessel PCI may be safe in selected cardiogenic shock patients.

Writing in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, Alejandro Lemor (Henry Ford Hospital, Cardiovascular Department, Detroit, USA) and others report that there is a lack of consensus about the use of multivessel PCI in patients who have cardiogenic shock. They state the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial found that cardiogenic shock patients who received multivessel PCI had poorer outcomes at 30 days than those received culprit-vessel only PCI. However, the trial did not find any significant differences in survival between the two groups from 30 days to one year. Furthermore, patients in the culprit-vessel only PCI group had an increased risk of repeat revascularisation and hospitalisation for heart failure within the first year of follow-up.

Another issue in the debate over the use of multivessel PCI for cardiogenic shock is the emergence of mechanical circulatory support, with Lemor et al noting that recent studies have indicated that the use of mechanical circulatory support may significant reduce mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock. “To date, studies comparing revascularisation strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock and multivessel coronary artery disease with the use of mechanical circulatory support has been limited,” the authors say. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare multivessel PCI with culprit-vessel PCI in cardiogenic shock patients who received mechanical support.

Lemor et al reviewed outcomes from hospitals participating in the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative, which has a set strategy for managing cardiogenic shock patients—including the early use of mechanical circulatory support. In the study, of 198 cardiogenic shock patients with multivessel disease, 126 received multivessel PCI and 72 received culprit-vessel only PCI. The primary endpoint was hospital survival and secondary endpoints included acute kidney injury.

The authors report that there were no significant differences between groups in the rate of hospital survival or in the rate of acute kidney injury. They add: “Among patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease and multivessel PCI, those that underwent two-vessel PCI had a 65.7% survival and those with three-vessel PCI had a 72.7% survival.”

The authors conclude: “Selective non-culprit PCI can be safely performed in acute myocardial infraction cardiogenic shock in patients supported with mechanical circulatory support. Further studies are needed to assess long-term outcomes of this treatment strategy.”

Lemor told Cardiovascular News: “We saw worse haemodynamics initially in those undergoing multivessel PCI; however, patients were more tolerant of this transient worsening of myocardial function without effecting in-hospital mortality, as they were supported with mechanical circulatory support. An important message of the study is that selective non-culprit PCI can be safely performed in [the setting of] acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock in patients supported with mechanical circulatory support. The decision of multivessel PCI should be carefully evaluated, taking into account several factors, such as TIMI flow grade, presence of a chronic total occlusion, the size and distribution of the vessel, and underlying haemodynamics.”

Source CardiovascularNews

Duc Tin Clinic

Tin tức liên quan

Enrolment reaches midway point in trial of Early Bird bleed monitoring system

Eight-fold increased risk of heart attack seen in patients with subclinical obstructive coronary atherosclerosis

ACC 2023: REVIVED-BCIS-2 results challenge “long-held beliefs” on myocardial viability testing prior to PCI

Blood pressure successfully cut in RADIANCE II ultrasound renal denervation trial

New data examine mortality rates and cardiac damage in early-stage aortic stenosis patients

SUPPORT CONSULTANT

CUSTOMER REVIEWS

• I am Nguyen Thanh Sang, born in 1990. Since the examination and treatment at the clinic Duc Tin, I am very grateful to the Doctor for explaining and sharing about my illness. During the treatment time in the clinic I was very caring staff of the clinic. Now my illness has improved in a good way. Expect more and more clinic to be able to save many patients.

  I sincerely thank you !. Tel: 0938303275

• Huynh Thi Muoi, born in 1940, was examined and treated at Duc Tin Clinic. I am very pleased about how to serve and care patients of the clinic. The doctor is committed to explaining and sharing with the patient.

  Huynh Thi Muoi sincerely thank you! Phone number: 0972868746

• As I said Duc Tin surgical clinin is where my family trust, hope to visit. Physicians caring, thoughtful, gentle to the patient. Nurses and staff clinic polite, cheerful and thoughtful. This clinic clean, sterile, so I would love to. Tel: +84949914060.

• The doctor is very caring, attentive and very gentle nurse, courteous, affable with me. The clinic is clean, comfortable, polite. I enjoyed this faith. Every visit I was very relieved disease. Tel: 0839820792.

• I was patient, had to clinics of Dr. Le Duc Tin. I see very conscientious doctor patient care, answer any questions and very dedicated staff from the receptionist to the children tested, nursing. Clinics very clean and spacious. I'm very satisfied. Tel: +841227880829.

Search

News

Customer support