Leon H. Charney Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY; Cardiology Section, Department of Medicine, VA New York Harbor Health Care System, New York, NY.
Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY.
Am Heart J. 2020 Jul;225:55-59. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2020.04.011. Epub 2020 May 3.
Cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (MI) is associated with high mortality. In the absence of data to support coronary revascularization beyond the infarct artery and selection of circulatory support devices or medications, clinical practice may vary substantially.
We distributed a survey to interventional cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons through relevant professional societies to determine contemporary coronary revascularization and circulatory support strategies for MI with CS and multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD).
A total of 143 participants completed the survey between 1/2019 and 8/2019. Overall, 55.2% of participants reported that the standard approach to coronary revascularization was single vessel PCI of the infarct related artery (IRA) with staged PCI of non-culprit lesions. Single vessel PCI of the IRA only (28.0%), emergency multi-vessel PCI (11.9%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (4.9%) were standard approaches at some centers. A plurality of survey respondents (46.9%) believed initial PCI with staged CABG for multi-vessel CAD would be associated with the most favorable outcomes. A minority of respondents believed PCI-only strategies (23.1%) and CABG alone (6.3%) provided optimal care, and 23.1% were unsure of the best strategy. After PCI for CS, Impella (76.9%), intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) (12.8%), and extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (7.7%) were preferred. After CABG, IABP (34.3%), Impella (32.2%), and ECMO (28%) were preferred.
This survey indicates substantial heterogeneity in clinical care in CS. There is evidence of provider uncertainty and clinical equipoise regarding the optimal management of patients with MI, multi-vessel CAD, and CS.
We sought to determine contemporary practice patterns of coronary revascularization and circulatory support in patients with MI, multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD), and cardiogenic shock. A survey was distributed to interventional cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons through relevant professional societies. Survey respondents identified substantial heterogeneity in clinical care and evidence of provider uncertainty and clinical equipoise regarding the optimal management of patients with MI, multi-vessel CAD, and CS.
目的:本研究旨在明确目前对于急性心肌梗死(MI)合并多支血管病变(CAD)及心源性休克(CS)患者的冠状动脉血运重建和循环支持策略。
方法:通过相关专业学会向介入心脏病专家和心胸外科医生发放调查问卷,了解目前对于 MI 合并 CS 及多支 CAD 患者的冠状动脉血运重建和循环支持策略。
结果:共 143 名参与者在 2019 年 1 月至 2019 年 8 月期间完成了这项调查。总体而言,55.2%的参与者表示,标准的冠状动脉血运重建方法是经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)梗死相关动脉(IRA),然后分期 PCI 非罪犯病变。仅经皮冠状动脉介入治疗 IRA(28.0%)、紧急多支血管 PCI(11.9%)和冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)(4.9%)在一些中心是标准方法。多数(46.9%)调查参与者认为,对于多支 CAD 患者,初始 PCI 联合分期 CABG 治疗会获得最佳预后。少数(23.1%)认为单纯 PCI 策略和单纯 CABG 治疗能够提供最佳治疗效果,还有 23.1%的人不确定最佳策略。CS 后,首选 Impella(76.9%)、主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)(12.8%)和体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)(7.7%)。CABG 后,首选 IABP(34.3%)、Impella(32.2%)和 ECMO(28%)。
结论:本研究表明,CS 患者的临床治疗存在明显的异质性。对于 MI、多支 CAD 和 CS 患者的最佳治疗管理,在提供者中存在不确定性和临床平衡。