Jentzer Jacob C, Naidu Srihari S, Bhatt Deepak L, Stone Gregg W
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Department of Cardiology, Westchester Medical Center and New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York.
J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2023 Mar 27;2(2):100586. doi: 10.1016/j.jscai.2023.100586. eCollection 2023 Mar-Apr.
Cardiogenic shock (CS) caused by acute myocardial infarction (AMI) accounts for most deaths in the population with AMI and continues to be associated with high short-term mortality. Several temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have been developed to treat CS and studied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with AMI-CS. Unfortunately, none of these RCTs has demonstrated an improvement in survival with temporary MCS in AMI-CS. Potential reasons for these negative results in RCTs are numerous and reflect the challenges of enrolling critically ill patients with CS. Researchers have used observational study designs to provide insights about outcomes associated with the use of temporary MCS in AMI-CS. These observational studies have yielded conflicting results, in some cases contrary to the results of RCTs. Several limitations pertinent to both RCTs and observational analyses, mostly relating to selection bias and failure to consider unmeasured confounding variables and population heterogeneity, preclude drawing strong inferences regarding the effects of temporary MCS on survival in populations with AMI-CS. Understanding these limitations is essential to correctly interpreting the literature regarding temporary MCS to treat AMI-CS and is necessary to inform the design of future studies that will potentially provide stronger evidence. Optimally matching temporary MCS devices to the needs of individual patients with AMI-CS will presumably be more successful than indiscriminate application in unselected patients. In this review, we discuss the existing literature on temporary MCS to treat AMI-CS and describe the specific challenges that must be overcome to develop an improved evidence base for guiding clinical practice.
急性心肌梗死(AMI)所致的心源性休克(CS)是AMI患者死亡的主要原因,且短期死亡率一直居高不下。目前已研发出多种临时机械循环支持(MCS)设备用于治疗CS,并在AMI-CS患者的随机对照试验(RCT)中进行了研究。遗憾的是,这些RCT均未证明临时MCS能改善AMI-CS患者的生存率。RCT出现这些阴性结果的潜在原因众多,反映出纳入重症CS患者的挑战。研究人员采用观察性研究设计,以深入了解AMI-CS患者使用临时MCS的相关结局。这些观察性研究结果相互矛盾,在某些情况下与RCT结果相反。RCT和观察性分析都存在一些局限性,主要与选择偏倚、未考虑未测量的混杂变量和人群异质性有关,这使得难以就临时MCS对AMI-CS患者生存率的影响得出有力推论。了解这些局限性对于正确解读关于临时MCS治疗AMI-CS的文献至关重要,也是为未来研究设计提供信息的必要条件,这些研究可能会提供更有力的证据。将临时MCS设备与AMI-CS个体患者的需求进行最佳匹配,可能比在未选择的患者中盲目应用更为成功。在本综述中,我们讨论了关于临时MCS治疗AMI-CS的现有文献,并描述了为建立更好的循证基础以指导临床实践必须克服的具体挑战。