Back to Search Start Over

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

Authors :
Michel Zeitouni
Ibrahim Akin
Steffen Desch
Olivier Barthélémy
Delphine Brugier
Jean-Philippe Collet
Suzanne de Waha-Thiele
John P. Greenwood
Paul Guedeney
Georges Hage
Marie Hauguel-Moreau
Kurt Huber
Mathieu Kerneis
Marko Noc
Keith G. Oldroyd
Jan J. Piek
Stéphanie Rouanet
Stefano Savonitto
Pranas Serpytis
Johanne Silvain
Janina Stepinska
Eric Vicaut
Christiaan J.M. Vrints
Stephan Windecker
Uwe Zeymer
Holger Thiele
Gilles Montalescot
Patrizia Torremante
Roza Meyer-Saraei
Ulrich Tebbe
Jochen Wöhrle
Otmar Pachinger
Clemens Busch
Nathalie Pfeiffer
Alexander Neumer
Steffen Schneider
Taoufik Ouarrak
Thomas Reimer
Christiane Lober
Peter Clemmensen
Ferenc Follath
Karl Wegscheider
O. Barthélémy
M. Zeitouni
P. Overtchouk
P. Guedeney
G. Hage
null Hauguel-Moreau
CULPRIT-SHOCK Trial Investigators
ACS - Microcirculation
ACS - Atherosclerosis & ischemic syndromes
Cardiology
Source :
Chest, Chest, 159(4), 1415-1425. American College of Chest Physicians
Publication Year :
2020

Abstract

Background The impact of ECG presentations of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in cardiogenic shock is unknown. Research Question 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)? Study Design and 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). Interpretation 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.

Details

ISSN :
19313543 and 00123692
Volume :
159
Issue :
4
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Chest
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....5e15f97e5e6d7fb22c65388cce90c381