Outcomes of patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock treated with culprit vessel-only versus multivessel primary PCI
Language English Country Netherlands Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article
PubMed
37633488
DOI
10.1016/j.hjc.2023.08.009
PII: S1109-9666(23)00146-X
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Acute myocardial infarction, Cardiogenic shock, Culprit vessel primary angioplasty, Multivessel disease, Multivessel primary angioplasty,
- MeSH
- ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction * complications surgery MeSH
- Myocardial Infarction * complications therapy MeSH
- Shock, Cardiogenic etiology therapy MeSH
- Percutaneous Coronary Intervention * methods MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Coronary Artery Disease * complications surgery MeSH
- Risk Factors MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
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.
Institute of Clinical and Experimental Medicine Prague Czech Republic
Masaryk Hospital Usti Nad Labem Czech Republic
Regional Hospital Karlovy Vary Czech Republic
Regional Hospital Pardubice Czech Republic
University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Hradec Kralové Czech Republic
University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Ostrava Czech Republic
University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Pilsen Czech Republic
References provided by Crossref.org