Lack of progress in cardiogenic shock: lessons from the GUSTO trials.

AIMS

We used the GUSTO-I and GUSTO-III databases to evaluate our performance in treating cardiogenic shock patients over much of the 1990s.

METHODS AND RESULTS

GUSTO-I (1990-1993) and GUSTO-III (1995-1997) prospectively identified all patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Demographics, clinical presentation and outcomes for cardiogenic shock patients in the two trials were compared. Only patients enrolled with cardiogenic shock in countries common to both trials were included in these analysis. The 695 patients with cardiogenic shock in GUSTO-III were compared with the 2814 patients with cardiogenic shock in GUSTO-I. GUSTO-III patients were older (P=0.0001) and more likely to be diabetic (P=0.009) and hypertensive (P=0.025). They had a higher Killip class (P=0.002) and significantly greater index anterior infarction than cardiogenic shock patients enrolled in GUSTO-I. Time to treatment, presentation heart rate, and diastolic blood pressure were similar; however, systolic blood pressure at presentation was higher among GUSTO-III patients (P=0.002). Rates of coronary angiography, pulmonary artery catheterization, and mechanical ventilation declined in GUSTO-III compared with GUSTO-I (P=0.001); rates of angioplasty and bypass surgery were similar. Cardiogenic shock mortality in GUSTO-III was significantly higher than in GUSTO-I (62 vs 54%, P=0.001), as were rates of reinfarction (14 vs 11%, P=0.013) and recurrent ischaemia (35 vs 27%, P=0.00001). Mortality at non-U.S. sites (68 and 64%) was higher than at U.S. sites (53 and 50%) in both GUSTO-I and GUSTO-III studies, respectively. Angioplasty, bypass surgery, and balloon pump rates were lower for non-U.S. patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiogenic shock continues to be associated with high mortality in thrombolytic-treated patients. Lower mortality observed in the U.S.A. supports consideration for percutaneous and surgical revascularization.