nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.12.2016 | Main topic

Interventional therapies in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

verfasst von: S. de Waha, MD, S. Desch, G. Fuernau, J. Pöss, J. Ledwoch, A. Jobs, I. Eitel, H. Thiele

Erschienen in: Herz | Ausgabe 1/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Cardiogenic shock remains the most common cause of death in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Early revascularization of the infarct-related artery has been shown to reduce mortality and is the therapeutic cornerstone. The optimal revascularization strategy of additional non-culprit lesions remains yet to be determined. Further, uncertainties exist with respect to access site choice, antiplatelet regimen as well as mechanical support devices. This review outlines current evidence on the interventional management of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.

Aissaoui N, Puymirat E, Tabone X et al (2012) 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(20):2535–2543. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs264 CrossRefPubMed

Goldberg RJ, Spencer FA, Gore JM et al (2009) Thirty-year trends (1975 to 2005) in the magnitude of, management of, and hospital death rates associated with cardiogenic shock in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a population-based perspective. Circulation 119(9):1211–1219. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.814947 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Jeger RV, Radovanovic D, Hunziker PR et al (2008) Ten-year incidence and treatment of cardiogenic shock. Ann Intern Med 149:618–626CrossRefPubMed

Reynolds HR, Hochman JS (2008) Cardiogenic shock: current concepts and improving outcomes. Circulation 117(5):686–697. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.613596 CrossRefPubMed

Thiele H, Allam B, Chatellier G et al (2010) Shock in acute myocardial infarction: the Cape Horn for trials? Eur Heart J 31(15):1828–1835. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehq220 CrossRefPubMed

Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG et al (2006) Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 295:2511–2515CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG et al (1999) 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(9):625–634. doi:10.1056/NEJM199908263410901 CrossRefPubMed

Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F et al (2014) 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu278

Steg PG, James SK, Atar D et al (2012) ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: The Task Force on the management of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 33(20):2569–2619. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs215 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Roffi M, Patrono C, Collet JP et al (2016) 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 37(3):267–315. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehv320 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Aissaoui N, Puymirat E, Tabone X et al (2012) 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(20):2535–2543. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs264 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Sanborn TA, Sleeper LA, Webb JG et al (2003) Correlates of one-year survival in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: angiographic findings from the SHOCK trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 42:1373–1379CrossRefPubMed

13.

Webb JG, Lowe AM, Sanborn TA et al (2003) Percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock in the SHOCK trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 42(8):1380–1386CrossRefPubMed

14.

Zeymer U, Werdan K, Schuler G et al (2016) Impact of immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus culprit lesion intervention on 1‑year outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Results of the randomised IABP-SHOCK II trial. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. doi:10.1177/2048872616668977

15.

Bauer T, Zeymer U, Hochadel M et al (2012) Use and outcomes of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (from the EHS-PCI Registry). Am J Cardiol 109(7):941–946CrossRefPubMed

16.

Cavender MA, Milford-Beland S, Roe MT et al (2009) Prevalence, predictors, and in-hospital outcomes of non-infarct artery intervention during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry). Am J Cardiol 104(4):507–513. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.04.016 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Hussain F, Philipp RK, Ducas RA et al (2011) The ability to achieve complete revascularization is associated with improved in-hospital survival in cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction: Manitoba cardiogenic shock registry investigators. Cathet Cardiovasc Interv 78(4):540–548. doi:10.1002/ccd.23006 CrossRef

18.

Mylotte D, Morice M‑C, Eltchaninoff H et al (2013) Primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction, resuscitated cardiac arrest, and cardiogenic shock. The role of primary multivessel revascularization. JACC: Cardiovasc Intv 6(2):115–125

19.

Park JS, Cha KS, Lee DS et al (2015) Culprit or multivessel revascularisation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. Heart 101(15):1225–1232. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2014-307220 CrossRefPubMed

20.

van der Schaaf RJ, Claessen BE, Vis MM et al (2010) Effect of multivessel coronary disease with or without concurrent chronic total occlusion on one-year mortality in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol 105(7):955–959CrossRefPubMed

21.

Yang JH, Hahn JY, Song PS et al (2014) Percutaneous coronary intervention for nonculprit vessels in cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction. Crit Care Med 47:17–25CrossRef

22.

Zeymer U, Hochadel M, Thiele H et al (2014) Immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus culprit lesion intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results of the ALKK-PCI registry. EuroIntervention. doi:10.4244/EIJY4214M4208_4204

23.

Cavender MA, Rajeswaran J, DiPaola L et al (2013) Outcomes of culprit versus multivessel PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by shock. J Invasive Cardiol 25(5):218–224PubMed

24.

Bauer T, Zeymer U, Hochadel M et al (2011) Prima-vista multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in haemodynamically stable patients with acute coronary syndromes: Analysis of over 4.400 patients in the EHS-PCI registry. Int J Cardiol 166(3):596–600CrossRefPubMed

25.

Thiele H, Desch S, Piek JJ et al (2016) Multivessel versus culprit lesion only percutaneous revascularization plus potential staged revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Design and rationale of CULPRIT-SHOCK trial. Am Heart J 172:160–169. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2015.11.006 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Mehta RH, Lopes RD, Ballotta A et al (2010) Percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass surgery for cardiogenic shock and multivessel coronary artery disease? Am Heart J 159(1):141–147CrossRefPubMed

27.

Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann F‑J et al (2012) Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 367(14):1287–1296. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1208410 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Valgimigli M, Gagnor A, Calabro P et al (2015) Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 385(9986):2465–2476. doi:10.1016/S01406736(15)60292-6 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J et al (2011) Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet 377(9775):1409–1420. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60404-2 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Romagnoli E, Biondi-Zoccai G, Sciahbasi A et al (2012) Radial versus femoral randomized investigation in ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: the RIFLE-STEACS (Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 60(24):2481–2489. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.06.017 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Pancholy SB, Joshi P, Shah S et al (2015) Effect of vascular access site choice on radiation exposure during coronary angiography: the REVERE trial (Randomized Evaluation of Vascular Entry site and Radiation Exposure). Jacc Cardiovasc Interv 8(9):1189–1196. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2015.03.026 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Geisler T, Zurn C, Simonenko R et al (2010) Early but not late stent thrombosis is influenced by residual platelet aggregation in patients undergoing coronary interventions. Eur Heart J 31(1):59–66. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehp402 CrossRefPubMed

33.

Parodi G, Xanthopoulou I, Bellandi B et al (2014) Ticagrelor crushed tablets administration in STEMI patients: The Mashed Or Just Integral Tablets of ticagrelOr (MOJITO) study. Eur Heart J 35(Abstract Supplement):1030

34.

Antoniucci D, Valenti R, Migliorini A et al (2002) Abciximab therapy improves survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by early cardiogenic shock undergoing coronary artery stent implantation. Am J Cardiol 90:353–357CrossRefPubMed

35.

Tousek P, Rokyta R, Tesarova J et al (2011) Routine upfront abciximab versus standard periprocedural therapy in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock: The PRAGUE-7 Study. An open randomized multicentre study. Acute Card Care 13(3):116–122. doi:10.3109/17482941.2011.567282 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Overgaard CB, Dzavik V (2008) Inotropes and vasopressors: review of physiology and clinical use in cardiovascular disease. Circulation 118(10):1047–1056. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.728840 CrossRefPubMed

37.

Blumenstein J, de Waha S, Thiele H (2016) Percutaneous ventricular assist devices and extracorporeal life support: current applications. EuroIntervention 12(Suppl X):X61–X67. doi:10.4244/EIJV12SXA12 CrossRefPubMed

38.

Stretch R, Sauer CM, Yuh DD, Bonde P (2014) National trends in the utilization of short-term mechanical circulatory support: incidence, outcomes, and cost analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 64(14):1407–1415. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.07.958 CrossRefPubMed

39.

Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ et al (2013) Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial. Lancet 382(9905):1638–1645. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61783-3 CrossRefPubMed

40.

Thiele H, Zeymer U, Werdan K (2013) Intraaortic balloon support for cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 368(1):81. doi:10.1056/NEJMc1213513 PubMed

41.

Thiele H, Sick P, Boudriot E et al (2005) Randomized comparison of intra-aortic balloon support with a percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients with revascularized acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J 26(13):1276–1283. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehi161 CrossRefPubMed

42.

Burkhoff D, Cohen H, Brunckhorst C, O’Neill WW (2006) A randomized multicenter clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device versus conventional therapy with intraaortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock. Am Heart J 152(3):469.e1–469.e8. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2006.05.031 CrossRef

43.

Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I et al (2008) A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 52(19):1584–1588. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.065 CrossRefPubMed

44.

Cheng JM, den Uil CA, Hoeks SE et al (2009) Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices vs. intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation for treatment of cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis of controlled trials. Eur Heart J 30(17):2102–2108. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehp292 CrossRefPubMed

45.

Engstrom AE, Cocchieri R, Driessen AH et al (2011) The Impella 2.5 and 5.0 devices for ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting with severe and profound cardiogenic shock: the Academic Medical Center intensive care unit experience. Crit Care Med 39(9):2072–2079. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31821e89b5 CrossRefPubMed

46.

O’Neill WW, Schreiber T, Wohns DH et al (2014) The current use of Impella 2.5 in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the USpella Registry. J Interv Cardiol 27(1):1–11. doi:10.1111/joic.12080 CrossRefPubMed

47.

de Waha S, Fuernau G, Desch S et al (2016) Long-term prognosis after extracorporeal life support in refractory cardiogenic shock: results from a real-world cohort. EuroIntervention 11(12):1363–1371. doi:10.4244/EIJV11I12A265 CrossRefPubMed

48.

Abrams D, Combes A, Brodie D (2014) Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiopulmonary disease in adults. J Am Coll Cardiol 63(25 Pt A):2769–2778. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.03.046 CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Interventional therapies in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock
verfasst von: S. de Waha, MD
S. Desch
G. Fuernau
J. Pöss
J. Ledwoch
A. Jobs
I. Eitel
H. Thiele
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2016
Verlag: Springer Medizin
Erschienen in: Herz / Ausgabe 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0340-9937
Elektronische ISSN: 1615-6692
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00059-016-4511-8

Neu im Fachgebiet Kardiologie

VHF-Ablation nützt wohl nur bei reduzierter Auswurfleistung

02.05.2024 Ablationstherapie Nachrichten

Ob die Katheterablation von Vorhofflimmern bei Patienten mit Herzinsuffizienz die Komplikationsraten senkt, scheint davon abzuhängen, ob die Auswurfleistung erhalten ist oder nicht. Das legen die Ergebnisse einer Metaanalyse nahe.

Das Risiko für Vorhofflimmern in der Bevölkerung steigt

02.05.2024 Vorhofflimmern Nachrichten

Das Risiko, im Lauf des Lebens an Vorhofflimmern zu erkranken, ist in den vergangenen 20 Jahren gestiegen: Laut dänischen Zahlen wird es drei von zehn Personen treffen. Das hat Folgen weit über die Schlaganfallgefährdung hinaus.

Weniger Extremitätenischämien mit dualer Plättchenhemmung

02.05.2024 Thrombozytenaggregationshemmer Nachrichten

Eine Behandlung mit Ticagrelor zusätzlich zu ASS kann das Risiko für Revaskularisierungen und Amputationen von Extremitäten bei Diabetikern mit stabiler KHK deutlich reduzieren, vor allem für solche mit PAVK. Dafür spricht eine Auswertung der Interventionsstudie THEMIS.

Beutel versus Maschine: Beste Beatmungstechnik bei Herzstillstand gesucht

02.05.2024 Kardiopulmonale Reanimation Nachrichten

Stehen die Chancen auf eine Rückkehr der Spontanzirkulation nach Herz-Kreislauf-Stillstand bei manueller oder maschineller Beatmung besser? Und unterscheidet sich das neurologische Outcome nach der Reanimation? Das belgische Herzstillstand-Register liefert die Daten für einen direkten Vergleich zwischen Beutel und Beatmungsgerät.

Update Kardiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Chronische Unterbauch- und Viszeralschmerzen in der Praxis managen"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2017

Results of pericardiectomy for constrictive pericarditis

Unterschiede zwischen deutsch- und türkischsprachigen Teilnehmenden an einem strukturierten Herzinsuffizienz-Versorgungsmodell

Identifying disrupted pathways by tracking altered modules in type 2 DM-related heart failure

Kardiales Remodelling nach Myokardinfarkt