image dons

je fais un don

Clinical Outcomes According to ECG Presentations in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock in the Culprit Lesion Only PCI vs Multivessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock Trial

Bourses ACTION & PHRA 2023
Plus que quelques jours pour soumettre vos projets !!!

La Grande Journée du Coeur (mardi 13 juin 2023)
Réservez vos places pour la 5e édition !

21e Colloquium de l'Institut - Le risque cardiaque et vasculaire (14 mars 2023)
Présentations bientôt en ligne !

Chest 2021 Apr;159(4):1415-1425


Article disponible en consultant le site

Auteurs

Zeitouni M, Akin I, Desch S, Barthélémy O, Brugier D, Collet JP, de Waha-Thiele S, Greenwood JP, Guedeney P, Hage G, Hauguel-Moreau M, Huber K, Kerneis M, Noc M, Oldroyd KG, Piek JJ, Rouanet S, Savonitto S, Serpytis P, Silvain J, Stepinska J, Vicaut E, Vrints CJM, Windecker S, Zeymer U, Thiele H, Montalescot G; CULPRIT-SHOCK Trial Investigators.

Abstract

Background

The impact of ECG presentations of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in cardiogenic shock is unknown.

Aims

In myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock, is there a difference in the outcomes and effect of revascularization strategies between non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and left bundle branch block myocardial infarction (LBBBMI) vs ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) ?

Methods

Cardiogenic shock patients from the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial with NSTEMI or LBBBMI were compared with STEMI patients for 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality. The interaction between ECG presentation and the effect of revascularization strategies on outcomes was evaluated.

Results

Of 665 cardiogenic shock patients analyzed, 55.9% demonstrated STEMI, 29.3% demonstrated NSTEMI, and 14.7% demonstrated LBBBMI. Patients differed in mean age (68.0 years in STEMI patients, 71.0 years in NSTEMI patients, and 73.5 years in LBBBMI patients; P = .015), cardiovascular risk factors, and angiographic severity. No difference was found in the 30-day risk of death between NSTEMI and STEMI patients (48.7% vs 43.0%; adjusted OR [aOR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.66-1.67; P = .85), nor between LBBBMI and STEMI patients (59.2% vs 43.0%; aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.73-2.34; P = .36). Although the univariate risk of death by 1 year was higher in NSTEMI and LBBBMI patients compared with STEMI patients, ECG presentation was not an independent risk factor of mortality after adjustment (NSTEMI vs STEMI: 56.4% vs 46.8%; aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.76-1.92; P = .42; LBBBMI vs STEMI: 69.4% vs 46.8%; aOR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.89-2.84; P = .12). ECG presentation did not modify the effect of the revascularization strategy on 30-day and 1-year mortality (P = .91 and P = .97 for interaction).

Conclusions

In patients with cardiogenic shock, NSTEMI and LBBBMI presentations reflect higher-risk profiles than STEMI presentations, but are not independent risk factors of mortality. ECG presentations did not modify the treatment effect, supporting culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention as the preferred strategy across the AMI spectrum.

Autres actualités

+

21/11/2021


Bleeding in the Elderly: Risk Factors and Impact on Clinical...

Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2021 Nov;21(6):681-691
+

01/11/2021


Pretreatment in the Setting of Non-ST-Elevated Acute Coronar...

JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Nov 1;4(11):e2134472
+

01/08/2021


RAS inhibition and COVID-19: more questions than answers ?

Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Aug;9(8):807-809