Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: The use of coronary angioplasty and the integration of the new support devices into patient management

Conventional therapy for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction continues to be associated with a high in-hospital mortality rate. Hemodynamic support with new mechanical devices and emergency coronary revascularization may alter the long-term prognosis for patients with this com...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of the American College of Cardiology 1992-03, Vol.19 (3), p.647-653
Hauptverfasser: Gacioch, Gerald M., Ellis, Stephen G., Lee, Linda, Bates, Eric R., Kirsh, Marvin, Walton, Joseph A., Topol, Eric J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Conventional therapy for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction continues to be associated with a high in-hospital mortality rate. Hemodynamic support with new mechanical devices and emergency coronary revascularization may alter the long-term prognosis for patients with this complication. Between July 1985 and March 1990, 68 patients presented to the University of Michigan with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. Interventions performed included thrombolytic therapy (46%), intraaortic balloon pump counterpulsation (70%), cardiac catheterization (86%), coronary angioplasty (73%), emergency coronary artery bypass grafting/ventricular septal defect repair (15%), Hemopump insertion (11%), percutaneous cardiopulmonary support (4%) and ventricular assist device (3%). The 30-day survival rate was significantly better in patients who had successful angioplasty of the infarct-related artery than in patients with failed angioplasty (61% vs. 7%, p = 0.002) or no attempt at angioplasty (61% vs. 14%, p = 0.003). This difference was maintained over the 1-year follow-up period. The only clinical variable that predicted survival was age
ISSN:0735-1097
1558-3597
DOI:10.1016/S0735-1097(10)80286-4