Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Outcomes of patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock treated with culprit vessel-only versus multivessel primary PCI

O. Hlinomaz, Z. Motovska, P. Kala, M. Hromadka, J. Precek, J. Mrozek, P. Červinka, J. Kettner, J. Matejka, A. Zohoor, J. Bis, J. Jarkovsky

. 2024 ; 76 (-) : 1-10. [pub] 20230824

Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc24007009

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Multivessel primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is still often used in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS). The study aimed to compare the characteristics and prognosis of patients with CS-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. CONCLUSIONS: Our data from an extensive all-comers registry suggests that selective use of MV-pPCI does not increase the all-cause mortality rate in patients with CS-STEMI and MVD compared to CV-pPCI.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc24007009
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20240423155644.0
007      
ta
008      
240412e20230824ne f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.hjc.2023.08.009 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)37633488
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a ne
100    1_
$a Hlinomaz, Ota $u International Clinical Research Center and Department of Cardioangiology, St. Anne University Hospital and Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Outcomes of patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock treated with culprit vessel-only versus multivessel primary PCI / $c O. Hlinomaz, Z. Motovska, P. Kala, M. Hromadka, J. Precek, J. Mrozek, P. Červinka, J. Kettner, J. Matejka, A. Zohoor, J. Bis, J. Jarkovsky
520    9_
$a INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Multivessel primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is still often used in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS). The study aimed to compare the characteristics and prognosis of patients with CS-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. CONCLUSIONS: Our data from an extensive all-comers registry suggests that selective use of MV-pPCI does not increase the all-cause mortality rate in patients with CS-STEMI and MVD compared to CV-pPCI.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a kardiogenní šok $x etiologie $x terapie $7 D012770
650    12
$a nemoci koronárních tepen $x komplikace $x chirurgie $7 D003324
650    12
$a koronární angioplastika $x metody $7 D062645
650    12
$a infarkt myokardu s elevacemi ST úseků $x komplikace $x chirurgie $7 D000072657
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    _2
$a rizikové faktory $7 D012307
650    12
$a infarkt myokardu $x komplikace $x terapie $7 D009203
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Motovska, Zuzana $u Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic. Electronic address: zuzana.motovska@lf3.cuni.cz
700    1_
$a Kala, Petr $u University Hospital Brno and Faculty of Medicine of Masaryk University, Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiology, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Hromadka, Milan $u University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Pilsen, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Precek, Jan $u University Hospital Olomouc and Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Olomouc, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Mrozek, Jan $u University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Ostrava, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Červinka, Pavel $u Masaryk Hospital, Usti Nad Labem, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Kettner, Jiri $u Institute of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Matejka, Jan $u Regional Hospital, Pardubice, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Zohoor, Ahmad $u Regional Hospital, Karlovy Vary, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Bis, Josef $u University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Hradec Kralové, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Jarkovsky, Jiri $u Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses of Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic; Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00163176 $t Hellenic journal of cardiology $x 2241-5955 $g Roč. 76 (20230824), s. 1-10
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37633488 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20240412 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20240423155640 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2081171 $s 1216776
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2024 $b 76 $c - $d 1-10 $e 20230824 $i 2241-5955 $m Hellenic journal of cardiology $n Hellenic J Cardiol $x MED00163176
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20240412

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace