OUTCOMES OF PATIENTS WITH ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION AND CARDIOGENIC SHOCK TREATED WITH CULPRIT VESSEL-ONLY VERSUS MULTIVESSEL PRIMARY PCI- A COMPARITIVE STUDY FROM TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL

Main Article Content

Dr Muhammad Irfan
Dr Tahir Mumtaz
Dr Manoj Kumar Bodani
Dr Jaghat Ram
Iram Jehan Balouch
Dr Sana Mehboob
Dr Salman Khan

Keywords

.

Abstract

Introduction


The study aimed to compare the characteristics and prognosis of patients with Cardiogenic Shock STEMI  and multivessel coronary disease (MVD) treated with culprit vessel-only pPCI or multivessel-pPCI during the initial procedure


Material and methods


From 2016 to 2020  , 23,703 primary PCI patients with STEMI were included in a national all-comers registry of cardiovascular interventions. Of them, 1,213 (5.1%) patients had CS and MVD at admission to the hospital. Initially, 921 (75.9%) patients were treated with culprit vessel (CV)-pPCI and 292 (24.1%) with multivessel (MV)-pPCI.


Results


Patients with 3-vessel disease and left main disease had a higher probability of being treated with MV-pPCI than patients with 2-vessel disease and patients without left main disease (28.5% vs. 18.6%; p < 0.001 and 37.7% vs. 20.6%; p < 0.001). Intra-aortic balloon pump, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and other mechanical circulatory support systems were more often used in patients with MV-pPCI. Thirty (30)-day and 1-year all-cause mortality rates were similar in the CV-pPCI and MV-pPCI groups (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77 to 1.32; p = 0.937 and 1.1; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.44; p = 0.477). The presence of 3-vessel disease and the use of ECMO were the strongest adjusted predictors of 30-day and 1-year mortality.

Abstract 33 | pdf Downloads 16

References

1. M. Samsky, M. Krucoff, A.D. Althouse, et al.
Clinical and regulatory landscape for cardiogenic shock: A report from the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium ThinkTank on cardiogenic shock
Am Heart J, 219 (2020), pp. 1-8
View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
2. N. Aissaoui, E. Puymirat, X. Tabone, et al.
Improved outcome of cardiogenic shock at the acute stage of myocardial infarction: a report from the USIK 1995, USIC 2000, and FAST-MI French nationwide registries
Eur Heart J, 33 (2012), pp. 2535-2543
CrossrefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
3. U. Zeymer, P. Ludman, N. Danchin, et al.
Reperfusion therapy for ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the European Society of Cardiology EurObservational programme acute cardiovascular care-European association of PCI ST-elevation myocardial infarction registry
Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care, 11 (2022), pp. 481-490
Crossref View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
4. H. Thiele, B. Allam, G. Chatellier, G. Schuler, A. Lafont
Shock in acute myocardial infarction: the Cape Horn for trials?
Eur Heart J, 31 (2010), pp. 1828-1835
CrossrefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
5. H. Thiele, E.M. Ohman, S. de Waha-Thiele, U. Zeymer, S. Desch
Management of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: an update 2019
Eur Heart J, 40 (2019), pp. 2671-2683
CrossrefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
6. H.D. White, S.F. Assmann, T.A. Sanborn, 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, 112 (2005), pp. 1992-2001
View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
7. F.J. Neumann, M. Sousa-Uva, A. Ahlsson, et al.
2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization
Eur Heart J, 40 (2019), pp. 87-165
CrossrefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
8. J.G. Webb, A.M. Lowe, T.A. Sanborn, et al.
Percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock in the SHOCK trial
J Am Coll Cardiol, 42 (2003), pp. 1380-1386
View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
9. J.S. Hochman, L.A. Sleeper, J.G. Webb, et al.
Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock
N Engl J Med, 341 (1999), pp. 625-634
View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
10. J.S. Park, K.S. Cha, D.S. Lee, et al.
Culprit or multivessel revascularisation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock
Heart, 101 (2015), pp. 1225-1232
CrossrefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
11. H. Thiele, I. Akin, M. Sandri, et al.
PCI Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock
N Engl J Med, 377 (2017), pp. 2419-2432
CrossrefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
12. J.S. Lawton, J.E. Tamis-Holland, S. Bangalore, et al.
2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines
Circulation, 145 (2022), pp. e18-e114
Google Scholar
13. M. Gąsior, P. Desperak, D. Dudek, et al.
Multivessel Intervention in Myocardial Infarction with Cardiogenic Shock: CULPRIT-SHOCK Trial Outcomes in the PL-ACS Registry
J Clin Med, 10 (2021)
Google Scholar
14. www.uzis.cz.
Google Scholar
15. M. Zelizko, S. Drabkova, I. Kovacova, M. Mates
Development of percutaneous coronary interventions in the Czech Republic in 2005–2018. Results of the National Registry of Cardiovascular Interventions
Interv Akut Kardiol, 19 (2020), pp. 25-29
CrossrefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
16. D.S. Wald, J.K. Morris, N.J. Wald, et al.
Randomized trial of preventive angioplasty in myocardial infarction
N Engl J Med, 369 (2013), pp. 1115-1123
CrossrefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
17. A.H. Gershlick, J.N. Khan, D.J. Kelly, et al.
Randomized trial of complete versus lesion-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and multivessel disease: the CvLPRIT trial
J Am Coll Cardiol, 65 (2015), pp. 963-972
View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
18. T. Engstrøm, H. Kelbæk, S. Helqvist, et al.
Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI-3—PRIMULTI): an open-label, randomised controlled trial
Lancet (London, England), 386 (2015), pp. 665-671
View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
19. P.C. Smits, M. Abdel-Wahab, F.J. Neumann, et al.
Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Multivessel Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction
N Engl J Med, 376 (2017), pp. 1234-1244
View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
20. S.R. Mehta, D.A. Wood, R.F. Storey, et al.
Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction
N Engl J Med, 381 (2019), pp. 1411-1421
CrossrefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
21. P. Gaba, B.J. Gersh, Z.A. Ali, J.W. Moses, G.W. Stone
Complete versus incomplete coronary revascularization: definitions, assessment and outcomes
Nat Rev Cardiol, 18 (2021), pp. 155-168
CrossrefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
22. L.F. Li, M. Qiu, S.Y. Liu, H.R. Zhou
Effects of patient characteristics on the efficacy of complete revascularization for treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: A meta-analysis
Medicine, 100 (2021), Article e26251
CrossrefGoogle Scholar
23. H
Multivessel coronary disease diagnosed at the time of primary PCI for STEMI: complete revascularisation versus conservative strategy. Prague-13 trial
Kardiol Rev Int Med, 17 (2015), pp. 214-220
View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
24. Y. Ozaki, H. Hara, Y. Onuma, et al.
CVIT expert consensus document on primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) update 2022
Cardiovasc Interv Ther, 37 (2022), pp. 1-34
CrossrefGoogle Scholar
25. D.A. Wood, J.A. Cairns, J. Wang, et al.
Timing of staged nonculprit artery revascularization in patients with st-segment elevation myocardial infarction: COMPLETE Trial
J Am Coll Cardiol, 74 (2019), pp. 2713-2723
View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
26. V. Paradies, C. Waldeyer, P.L. Laforgia, P. Clemmensen, P.C. Smits
Completeness of revascularisation in acute coronary syndrome patients with multivessel disease
EuroIntervention: journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 17 (2021), pp. 193-201
CrossrefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
27. Almeida, J. Chin, H. Santos, et al.
Revascularization strategies in STEMI and multivessel disease
Acta Cardiol (2021), pp. 1-8
View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
28. Y. Okuya, K. Gohil, I.D. Moussa
Angiography versus FFR guided complete revascularization versus culprit-only revascularization for patients presenting with STEMI: Network meta-analysis
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions (2022)
Google Scholar
29. E. Puymirat, G. Cayla, T. Simon, et al.
Multivessel PCI Guided by FFR or Angiography for Myocardial Infarction
N Engl J Med, 385 (2021), pp. 297-308
CrossrefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
30. A.H. Gershlick, A.S. Banning, E. Parker, et al.
Long-Term Follow-Up of Complete Versus Lesion-Only Revascularization in STEMI and Multivessel Disease: The CvLPRIT Trial
J Am Coll Cardiol, 74 (2019), pp. 3083-3094
View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
31. J.P.M. Andrews, Z.A. Fayad, M.R. Dweck
New methods to image unstable atherosclerotic plaques
Atherosclerosis, 272 (2018), pp. 118-128
View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
32. L. Galiuto, L. Leccisotti, G. Locorotondo, et al.
Coronary plaque instability assessed by positron emission tomography and optical coherence tomography
Ann Nucl Med, 35 (2021), pp. 1136-1146
CrossrefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
33. P. Jüni
PCI for Nonculprit Lesions in Patients with STEMI - No Role for FFR
N Engl J Med, 385 (2021), pp. 370-371
CrossrefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
34. S.J. Nicholls, R. Puri, T. Anderson, et al.
Effect of Evolocumab on Progression of Coronary Disease in Statin-Treated Patients: The GLAGOV Randomized Clinical Trial
JAMA, 316 (2016), pp. 2373-2384
CrossrefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
35. M.S. Sabatine, R.P. Giugliano, A.C. Keech, et al.
Evolocumab and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease
N Engl J Med, 376 (2017), pp. 1713-1722
CrossrefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
36. G.G. Schwartz, P.G. Steg, M. Szarek, et al.
Alirocumab and Cardiovascular Outcomes after Acute Coronary Syndrome
N Engl J Med, 379 (2018), pp. 2097-2107
CrossrefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
37. El Nasasra, U. Zeymer
Current clinical management of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

Most read articles by the same author(s)