 |
|
One-Year Survival Following Early Revascularization for Cardiogenic Shock
Judith S. Hochman, MD;
Lynn A. Sleeper, ScD;
Harvey D. White, DSc;
Vladimir Dzavik, MD;
S. Chiu Wong, MD;
Venu Menon, MD;
John G. Webb, MD;
Richard Steingart, MD;
Michael H. Picard, MD;
Mark A. Menegus, MD;
Jean Boland, MD;
Timothy Sanborn, MD;
Christopher E. Buller, MD;
Sharada Modur, MS;
Robert Forman, MD;
Patrice Desvigne-Nickens, MD;
Alice K. Jacobs, MD;
James N. Slater, MD;
Thierry H. LeJemtel, MD;
for the SHOCK Investigators
JAMA. 2001;285:190-192.
ABSTRACT
| |
Context Cardiogenic shock (CS) is the leading cause of death for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
Objective To assess the effect of early revascularization (ERV) on 1-year survival for patients with AMI complicated by CS.
Design The SHOCK (Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock) Trial, an unblinded, randomized controlled trial from April 1993 through November 1998.
Setting Thirty-six referral centers with angioplasty and cardiac surgery facilities.
Patients Three hundred two patients with AMI and CS due to predominant left ventricular failure who met specified clinical and hemodynamic criteria.
Interventions Patients were randomly assigned to an initial medical stabilization (IMS; n = 150) group , which included thrombolysis (63% of patients), intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (86%), and subsequent revascularization (25%), or to an ERV group (n = 152), which mandated revascularization within 6 hours of randomization and included angioplasty (55%) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (38%).
Main Outcome Measures All-cause mortality and functional status at 1 year, compared between the ERV and IMS groups.
Results One-year survival was 46.7% for patients in the ERV group compared with 33.6% in the IMS group (absolute difference in survival, 13.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2%-24.1%; P<.03; relative risk for death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.95). Of the 10 prespecified subgroup analyses, only age (<75 vs  75 years) interacted significantly (P<.03) with treatment in that treatment benefit was apparent only for patients younger than 75 years (51.6% survival in ERV group vs 33.3% in IMS group). Eighty-three percent of 1-year survivors (85% of ERV group and 80% of IMS group) were in New York Heart Association class I or II.
Conclusions For patients with AMI complicated by CS, ERV resulted in improved 1-year survival. We recommend rapid transfer of patients with AMI complicated by CS, particularly those younger than 75 years, to medical centers capable of providing early angiography and revascularization procedures.
INTRODUCTION
Cardiogenic shock (CS) is the leading cause of death for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI),1-2 and mortality remains high during the following year.3-4 The SHOCK (Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock) Trial demonstrated a nonsignificant reduction in 30-day mortality (56% vs 47%) when early revascularization (ERV) was compared with a strategy of initial medical stabilization (IMS), with a larger difference between the groups at 6 months.5 In this article, we report the 1-year survival, a prespecified secondary end point of the SHOCK Trial.
METHODS
The SHOCK Trial design (an unblinded, randomized controlled trial) has been previously reported.6 Thirty-six referral centers with angioplasty and cardiac surgery facilities participated from April 1993 through November 1998. Patients with AMI who developed CS due to left ventricular failure at 36 hours or less were eligible if the electrocardiogram results showed ST-segment elevations or Q waves, posterior infarction, or new left bundle-branch block. Clinical and hemodynamic criteria indicating CS and the absence of all exclusion criteria were required for patient inclusion.5, 7 Patients were randomly assigned to undergo ERV, with either percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery at 6 hours or less, or to IMS, which included patients undergoing thrombolysis, intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) and subsequent revascularization with PTCA or CABG permitted 54 hours or more following randomization. The IABP procedure was performed in 86% of patients, thrombolysis in 63% of IMS patients, and subsequent revascularization in 25% of patients.5
Assignment of the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class was determined by a standardized telephone interview 1 year following AMI. Beginning in 1995, rehospitalization data were obtained via telephone.
Dichotomous survival end points were calculated based on survival times from randomization, without regard to heart transplantation. Fisher exact test was used to compare survival rates, and the normal approximation to the binomial was used to estimate the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the rate difference between groups. The Breslow-Day test of homogeneity of odds ratios was used to assess the interaction between treatment group and 10 prespecified subgroup variables.5, 7 The Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator and the log-rank test were used to analyze continuous survival times with censoring at the date of heart transplantation for 4 patients. In addition, 1 IMS patient who was lost to follow-up before 1 year was omitted from the survival analysis because of informative censoring (since this patient was not found in the Social Security Death Index, he/she is likely to be alive). All statistical analyses were conducted in SAS8 and S-Plus.9
RESULTS
The mean (SD) age of enrolled patients was 66 (11) years; 32% were female, 33% had history of AMI, 31% had diabetes mellitus, and 46% had hypertension. Fifty-five percent of patients were transferred from primary to tertiary care hospitals, by protocol 12 hours or less after CS.5 Eight patients (5 ERV and 3 IMS) were determined postrandomization to have aortic dissection, left ventricular free wall rupture, tamponade, or severe mitral regurgitation. Vital status at 1 year was available for 301 of 302 patients.
At 1-year postrandomization, there was a significant difference in survival between the ERV (n = 152) and IMS (n = 149) groups (46.7% vs 33.6%, P <.03) (relative risk for death, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.95). The absolute difference in survival was 13.2% (95% CI, 2.2%-24.1%). Figure 1 demonstrates the increasing survival benefit of the ERV group after 1 month (P = .04). After exclusion of 8 patients with aortic dissection, tamponade, or severe MR, the 1-year survival rate was 47.6% (n = 147) for the ERV and 33.6% (n = 146) for the IMS groups, a 14.1% absolute difference (95% CI 2.9%-25.2%; P<.02).
|
|
|
|
Figure. Kaplan-Meier Survival Curve 1-Year Postrandomization
Survival estimates for early revascularization (n = 152) and initial medical stabilization (n = 149) groups. Log-rank test P = .04. ERV indicates early revascularization group; IMS, initial medical stabilization group.
|
|
|
Three ERV patients and 1 IMS patient underwent cardiac transplantation; 2 survived to 1-year postrandomization.
Most patients (64%) had 3-vessel disease5 and the mean (SD) left ventricle ejection fraction was 29% (11%) (n = 46). Ninety-seven percent of ERV patients underwent coronary angiography and 87% underwent revascularization, including 55% (n = 84) with PTCA and 38% (n = 57) with CABG surgery. In the ERV group, the median time from randomization to revascularization was 0.9 hours for PTCA and 2.7 hours for CABG surgery.
Delayed revascularization was attempted in 32 IMS patients (21%) at a median of 103 hours after randomization, and 4% underwent revascularization at 54 hours or less.5 Initial medical stabilization patients who survived the first several days after randomization and were clinically selected to undergo revascularization had a 57% (21/37) 1-year survival rate. Their mean (SD) cardiac index was higher than IMS patients who did not undergo revascularization (2.02 [0.55] vs 1.68 [0.46] L · min-1 · m2 - 1; P<.01).
Only 1 of 10 prespecified subgroup analyses revealed a significant interaction with treatment (age <75 vs 75 years; interaction, P = .03). There was an 18% absolute difference in survival in favor of ERV patients for those younger than 75 years (51.6% for ERV vs 33.3% for IMS; 95% CI for the difference, 6.1%-30.4%) and no significant difference in survival between the 2 groups for those 75 years and older (20.8% for ERV vs 34.4% for IMS). There was no interaction between treatment effect and presence vs absence of the following variables: male sex, randomization 6 hours or less after AMI, anterior AMI, prior AMI, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, US site, transfer, and thrombolytic contraindication.
Among 1-year survivors (n = 90), 83% were in the NYHA congestive heart failure (CHF) class I or II (85% of the ERV group and 80% of the IMS group). The overall rehospitalization rate was similar for 69 ERV and 51 IMS patients (20% vs 18%); CHF (9% vs 12%), angina (7% vs 2%), and recurrent AMI (0%) respectively.
COMMENT
In this randomized trial of patients with AMI complicated by CS, ERV resulted in a 39% improvement in 1-year survival compared with initial aggressive medical stabilization. The absolute benefit of ERV for CS, 132 lives saved for every thousand patients treated, is greater than10 or similar to the absolute benefit of CABG for left main vessel disease at 1 year.11 However, the group difference of 9.3 percentage points in favor of ERV at 30 days (reported previously as the primary study end point) did not reach statistical significance.5 The increasing survival difference over time is in contrast with other therapies for AMI, such as thrombolysis and primary PTCA, for which maximal benefit is manifested at 30 days.12-13 The early mortality difference between primary PTCA and thrombolytic agents decreases over time for AMI patients without CS.13-14 However, the angiographic substudy of GUSTO I (Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries I) demonstrated divergence of the survival curves in the first year for those with normal vs abnormal coronary artery blood flow early after experiencing AMI.15 Our findings are consistent with results of randomized trials of CABG compared with medical therapy for high-risk patients with severe coronary artery disease, for whom an early hazard of surgery is more than offset only after long periods of follow-up.16-17
The higher 1-year survival with ERV was remarkably consistent among subgroups. The notable exception was a differential treatment effect by age. The younger patients (<75 years) derived a large benefit from ERV, in contrast to an apparent lack of benefit for those 75 years or older. However, the experience of the small elderly cohort (n = 56) in the trial is in contrast with results of the concurrent nonrandomized SHOCK Registry, which showed an apparent survival benefit for those 75 years or older who were clinically selected to undergo ERV.18-19 These data suggest that a routine strategy of ERV may not be appropriate for the elderly as a group but careful case selection might lead to increased survival in certain patients 75 years or older.
Based on the results of the SHOCK Trial, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association recently revised guidelines to recommend ERV for patients younger than 75 years with CS within 36 hours of AMI.20
In summary, ERV improves 1-year survival for patients with AMI complicated by CS. We recommend rapid transfer of patients with AMI and CS, particularly those younger than 75 years, to tertiary care hospitals with capabilities to perform urgent coronary angiography and revascularization.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Author Contributions: Drs Hochman and Sandborn participated in the study concept and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, obtained funding, and provided administrative, technical, or material support and supervision.
Dr Sleeper participated in the study concept and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, and provided statistical expertise.
Drs White and Boland participated in the study concept and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.
Dr Dzavik participated in acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.
Dr Wong participated in acquisition of data and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.
Dr Menon participated in analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, and provided administrative, technical, or material support.
Dr Webb participated in the study concept and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.
Dr Steingart participated in acquisition of data and analysis and interpretation of data and provided administrative, technical, or material support and supervision.
Dr Picard participated in the study concept and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, and provided statistical expertise and administrative, technical, or material support.
Dr Menegus participated in the study concept and design, acquisition of data, and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, and provided administrative, technical, or material support.
Dr Buller participated in acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.
Ms Modur participated in the analysis and interpretation of data and drafting of the manuscript and provided statistical expertise.
Dr Forman participated in the acquisition of data and drafting of the manuscript and provided supervision.
Dr Desvigne-Nickens participated in the analysis and interpretation of data and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.
Dr Jacobs participated in the acquisition of data and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content and provided administrative, technical, or material support.
Dr Slater participated in the acquisition of data and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.
Dr LeJemtel participated in the study concept and design, analysis and interpretation of data, and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.
Funding/Support: Supported by grants RO1-HL50020 and RO1-HL49970 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Acknowledgment: We thank the SHOCK investigators and coordinators for their the hard work and dedication and Richard Fuchs, MD, for his advice and editorial assistance.
Corresponding Author and Reprints: Judith S. Hochman, MD, St Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, 1111 Amsterdam Ave, New York, NY 10025.
Author Affiliations: A complete list of the institutional affiliations for the SHOCK investigators was published previously. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:625-634.
REFERENCES
| |
1. Goldberg RJ, Samad NA, Yarzebski J, Gurwitz J, Bigelow C, Gore JM. Temporal trends in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1162-1168.
FREE FULL TEXT
2. Becker RC, Gore JM, Lambrew C, et al. A composite view of cardiac rupture in the United States National registry of Myocardial Infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;27:1321-1326.
ABSTRACT
3. Gacioch GM, Ellis SG, Lee L, et al. Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;19:647-653.
ABSTRACT
4. Elatchaninoff H, Simpfendorfer C, Franco I, Raymond RE, Casale PN, Whitlow PL. Early and one year survival rates in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Am Heart J. 1995;130:459-464.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
5. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:625-634.
FREE FULL TEXT
6. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Godfrey E, et al. Should we emergently revascularize occluded coronaries for cardiogenic shock. Am Heart J. 1999;137:313-321.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
7. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research, Vol 1: The Analysis of Case-Control Studies. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1980. IARC Scientific Pub No. 32.
8. SAS System for Windows [computer program]. Version 6.12. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 1996.
9. S-PLUS for Windows [computer program]. Version 3.3. Seattle, Wash: Statistical Sciences Inc; 1995.
10. Varnauskas E and the European Coronary Surgery Study Group. Twelve-year follow-up of survival in the randomized European coronary surgery study. N Engl J Med. 1988;319:332-337.
ABSTRACT
11. Takaro T, Hultgren HN, Lipton MJ, Detre KM and participants in the study group. The VA Cooperative randomized study of surgery for coronary artery occlusive disease. Circulation. 1976;54(suppl3):III107-III117.
12. Franzosi MG, Santoro E, De Vita C, et al. Ten-year follow-up of the first megatrial testing thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1998;98:2659-2665.
FREE FULL TEXT
13. GUSTO II Angioplasty Substudy Investigators. An international randomized trial of 138 patients comparing primary coronary angioplasty versus tissue plasminogen activator for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1621-1628.
FREE FULL TEXT
14. Michels KB, Yusuf S. Does PTCA in acute myocardial infarction affect mortality and reinfarction rates? Circulation. 1995;91:476-485.
FREE FULL TEXT
15. The GUSTO Angiographic Investigators. The effects of tissue plasminogen activator, streptokinase, or both on coronary-artery patency, ventricular function, and survival after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1615-1622.
FREE FULL TEXT
16. Alderman EL, Fisher LD, Litwin P, et al. Results of coronary artery surgery in patients with poor left ventricular function (CASS). Circulation. 1983;68:785-795.
FREE FULL TEXT
17. Yusuf S, Zucker D, Peduzzi P, et al. Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on survival. Lancet. 1994;344:563-570.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
18. Hochman JS, Buller CE, Sleeper LA, et al. Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction-etiologies, management and outcome; overall findings of the SHOCK Trial Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1063-1070.
FREE FULL TEXT
19. Dzavik V, Sleeper L, Hosat S, Cocke T, LeJemtel T, Hochman JS. Effect of age on treatment and outcome of patients in cardiogenic shock [abstract]. Eur Heart J Suppl. 1998;19:28.
20. Ryan TJ, Antman EM, Brooks NH, et al. 1999 Update: ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Executive Summary and Recommendations: a Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 1999;100:1016-1030.
FREE FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLE
January 10, 2001
JAMA. 2001;285(2):229-230.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Percutaneous ventricular assist device support during off-pump surgical coronary revascularization.
Gregoric et al.
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2008;86:637-639.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Outcome after surgery and percutaneous intervention for cardiogenic shock and left main disease.
Lee et al.
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2008;86:29-34.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Clinical Characteristics and In-Hospital Outcomes of Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Insights From the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Database
Mehta et al.
Circulation 2008;117:876-885.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
2007 Focused Update of the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
American College of Cardiology/American Heart Asso et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:172-209.
FULL TEXT
2007 Focused Update of the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: 2007 Writing Group to Review New Evidence and Update the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Writing on Behalf of the 2005 Writing Committee
King et al.
Circulation 2008;117:261-295.
FULL TEXT
Myocardial Revascularization after Acute Myocardial Infarction
George and Oz
Card Surg Adult 2008;3:669-696.
FULL TEXT
Hemodynamic Parameters Are Prognostically Important in Cardiogenic Shock But Similar Following Early Revascularization or Initial Medical Stabilization: A Report From the SHOCK Trial
Jeger et al.
Chest 2007;132:1794-1803.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Metabolic Profiling of Arginine and Nitric Oxide Pathways Predicts Hemodynamic Abnormalities and Mortality in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction
Nicholls et al.
Circulation 2007;116:2315-2324.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Calm After the Storm: Long-Term Survival After Cardiogenic Shock
Hochman and Apolito
J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:1759-1760.
FULL TEXT
Long-Term Outcome and its Predictors Among Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Shock: Insights From the GUSTO-I Trial
Singh et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:1752-1758.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effect of nitric oxide synthase inhibition on haemodynamics and outcome of patients with persistent cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a phase II dose-ranging study
Dzavik et al.
Eur Heart J 2007;28:1109-1116.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Blood cardioplegia
Martin and Benk
MMCTS 2006;2006:745.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.
Hochman et al.
JAMA 2006;295:2511-2515.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Emergency revascularization in patients with cardiogenic shock on admission: a report from the SHOCK trial and registry
Jeger et al.
Eur Heart J 2006;27:664-670.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention--Summary Article: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention)
Smith et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:216-235.
FULL TEXT
ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention--Summary Article: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention)
Smith et al.
Circulation 2006;113:156-175.
FULL TEXT
Part 8: Stabilization of the Patient With Acute Coronary Syndromes
Circulation 2005;112:IV-89-IV-110.
FULL TEXT
Immediate angioplasty after thrombolysis: a systematic review
Cantor et al.
CMAJ 2005;173:1473-1481.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Part 5: Acute Coronary Syndromes
Circulation 2005;112:III-55-III-72.
FULL TEXT
Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting After Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: Results From the Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) Trial
White et al.
Circulation 2005;112:1992-2001.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Left ventricular assist device implantation after acute anterior wall myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: A two-center study
Dang et al.
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2005;130:693-698.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Trends in Management and Outcomes of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
Babaev et al.
JAMA 2005;294:448-454.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome After Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
Kohsaka et al.
Arch Intern Med 2005;165:1643-1650.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Improving Quality of Life After Cardiogenic Shock: Do More Revascularization!
Ohman and Chang
J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:274-276.
FULL TEXT
Functional Status and Quality of Life After Emergency Revascularization for Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction
Sleeper et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:266-273.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Management of Cardiogenic Shock Attributable to Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Reperfusion Era
Duvernoy and Bates
J Intensive Care Med 2005;20:188-198.
ABSTRACT
Predictors of outcome after percutaneous treatment for cardiogenic shock
Sutton et al.
Heart 2005;91:339-344.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Clinical implications of ST-segment non-resolution after thrombolysis for myocardial infarction
Bhatia et al.
JRSM 2004;97:566-570.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Severity of heart failure, treatments, and outcomes after fibrinolysis in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction
Kashani et al.
Eur Heart J 2004;25:1702-1710.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-Elevation myocardial infarction--executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (writing committee to revise the 1999 guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction)
Writing Committee Members et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:671-719.
FULL TEXT
ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction--Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction)
Antman et al.
Circulation 2004;110:588-636.
FULL TEXT
Recommendations on percutaneous coronary intervention for the reperfusion of acute ST elevation myocardial infarction
Montalescot et al.
Heart 2004;90:e37-e37.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Impaired Myocardial Perfusion Is a Major Explanation of the Poor Outcome Observed in Patients Undergoing Primary Angioplasty for ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Signs of Heart Failure
De Luca et al.
Circulation 2004;109:958-961.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Primary Coronary Intervention for Acute Myocardial Infarction
Keeley and Grines
JAMA 2004;291:736-739.
FULL TEXT
Determinants and Prognostic Impact of Heart Failure Complicating Acute Coronary Syndromes: Observations From the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE)
Steg et al.
Circulation 2004;109:494-499.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Correlates of one-year survival inpatients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: Angiographic findings from the SHOCK trial
Sanborn et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;42:1373-1379.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock in the SHOCK trial
Webb et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;42:1380-1386.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Relation Between Hospital Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation Volume and Mortality in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
Chen et al.
Circulation 2003;108:951-957.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Cardiogenic shock: have we really found the magic potion?
Menon
Eur Heart J 2003;24:1279-1281.
FULL TEXT
Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction: Expanding the Paradigm
Hochman
Circulation 2003;107:2998-3002.
FULL TEXT
Contemporary utilization and outcomes of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction: The benchmark registry
Stone et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:1940-1945.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Cardiogenic shock caused by right ventricular infarction: A report from the SHOCK registry
Jacobs et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:1273-1279.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Outcome of Elderly Patients With Chronic Symptomatic Coronary Artery Disease With an Invasive vs Optimized Medical Treatment Strategy: One-Year Results of the Randomized TIME Trial
Pfisterer et al.
JAMA 2003;289:1117-1123.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Cardiogenic Shock Complicating an Acute Myocardial Infarction: Conservative Treatment Versus Revascularization
Graaf et al.
SEMIN CARDIOTHORAC VASC ANESTH 2003;7:99-103.
The final common pathway
Holmes
Eur Heart J 2003;24:214-216.
FULL TEXT
Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: Prognostic impact of early and late shock development
Lindholm et al.
Eur Heart J 2003;24:258-265.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Echocardiographic Predictors of Survival and Response to Early Revascularization in Cardiogenic Shock
Picard et al.
Circulation 2003;107:279-284.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation
The Task Force on the Management of Acute Myocardi et al.
Eur Heart J 2003;24:28-66.
FULL TEXT
Appropriate timing of surgical intervention after transmural acute myocardial infarction
Lee et al.
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2003;125:115-120.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Myocardial Revascularization after Acute Myocardial Infarction
Lee et al.
Card Surg Adult 2003;2:639-658.
FULL TEXT
MANAGEMENT OF CARDIOGENIC SHOCK COMPLICATING ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION
Menon and Hochman
Heart 2002;88:531-537.
FULL TEXT
Revascularization during acute myocardial infarction: risks and benefits revisited
Albes et al.
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2002;74:102-108.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Reperfusion for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Overview of Current Treatment Options
Van de Werf and Baim
Circulation 2002;105:2813-2816.
FULL TEXT
New advances in the management of acute coronary syndromes: 3. The role of catheter-based procedures
Buller and Carere
CMAJ 2002;166:51-61.
FULL TEXT
ADDITIONAL ARTICLES ABSTRACTED IN ACP JOURNAL CLUB
Evid. Based Med. 2001;6:132-132.
FULL TEXT
Early Revascularization Better for Cardiogenic Shock
JWatch Emergency Med. 2001;2001:1-1.
FULL TEXT
Early Revascularization Beneficial for Cardiogenic Shock Before Age 75
Journal Watch Cardiology 2001;2001:3-3.
FULL TEXT
|
