Pfisterer Matthias
Division of Cardiology, University Hospital, CH-4031, Basel, Switzerland.
Lancet. 2003 Aug 2;362(9381):392-4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14028-7.
Right ventricular involvement in acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock has received little attention by clinicians and researchers, although its pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and natural history are distinctly different from those of left ventricular infarction and associated cardiogenic shock. Right ventricular shock has important therapeutic implications for the management of patients, which need to be recognised.
Investigators at the SHOCK Registry (Alice Jacobs and colleagues, J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 341: 1273-79) evaluated 49 patients with cardiogenic shock predominantly due to right ventricular infarction and compared them with 884 patients with cardiogenic shock and predominantly left ventricular failure. Perhaps surprisingly, these investigators found that the in-hospital mortality of patients with right ventricular shock was not significantly lower than that of patients with left ventricular shock (53% vs 61%, p=0.296), despite the fact that patients with right ventricular shock were younger, with a lower prevalence of previous infarctions, fewer anterior infarct locations, and less multivessel disease. There was a shorter median time between index infarction and diagnosis of shock in patients with right ventricular shock. In multivariate analysis, right ventricular shock was not an independent predictor of lower in-hospital mortality. WHERE NEXT? The unexpectedly high mortality of patients with cardiogenic shock due to predominantly right ventricular infarction challenges the general notion that right ventricular involvement in myocardial infarction has only little relevance for patient's outcome. Therefore, more attention should be given to the detection of right ventricular involvement in acute myocardial infarction and particularly in cardiogenic shock. If right ventricular shock is diagnosed, urgent reperfusion of the infarct related artery and appropriate circulatory support are required.
尽管右心室梗死和心源性休克的病理生理学、临床表现及自然病史与左心室梗死及相关心源性休克明显不同,但临床医生和研究人员对急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克时右心室受累情况关注较少。右心室休克对患者的治疗具有重要意义,需要引起重视。
“休克登记研究”(SHOCK Registry)的研究人员(爱丽丝·雅各布斯及其同事,《美国心脏病学会杂志》2003年;341: 1273 - 79)评估了49例主要因右心室梗死导致的心源性休克患者,并将其与884例主要因左心室衰竭导致的心源性休克患者进行比较。或许令人惊讶的是,这些研究人员发现,右心室休克患者的院内死亡率并不显著低于左心室休克患者(53%对61%,p = 0.296),尽管右心室休克患者更年轻,既往梗死患病率更低,前壁梗死部位更少,多支血管病变也更少。右心室休克患者从首次梗死到休克诊断的中位时间更短。在多变量分析中,右心室休克并非院内死亡率降低的独立预测因素。
下一步?主要因右心室梗死导致的心源性休克患者意外的高死亡率对右心室梗死在心肌梗死中对患者预后影响不大这一普遍观念提出了挑战。因此,应更加关注急性心肌梗死尤其是心源性休克时右心室受累情况的检测。如果诊断为右心室休克,需要对梗死相关动脉进行紧急再灌注并给予适当的循环支持。