TY - JOUR
T1 - Multivessel Versus Culprit-Vessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock
AU - National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative Investigators
AU - Lemor, Alejandro
AU - Basir, Mir B.
AU - Patel, Kirit
AU - Kolski, Brian
AU - Kaki, Amir
AU - Kapur, Navin
AU - Riley, Robert
AU - Finley, John
AU - Goldsweig, Andrew
AU - Aronow, Herbert D.
AU - Belford, P. Matthew
AU - Tehrani, Behnam
AU - Truesdell, Alexander G.
AU - Lasorda, David
AU - Bharadwaj, Aditya
AU - Hanson, Ivan
AU - LaLonde, Thomas
AU - Gorgis, Sarah
AU - O'Neill, William
AU - O'Neill, William W.
AU - Schreiber, Theodore
AU - Almany, Steve
AU - Timmis, Steven
AU - Dixon, Simon
AU - Attallah, Antonious
AU - Todd, Josh
AU - Marso, Steve
AU - Wilkins, Charles
AU - Patel, Nainesh
AU - Senter, Shaun
AU - McRae, Thomas
AU - Rahman, Ayaz
AU - Gelormini, Joseph
AU - Singh, Inder M.
AU - O'Neill, Brian
AU - Overly, Tijuan
AU - Sharma, Rahul
AU - Dupont, Allison
AU - Green, Michael
AU - Lim, Michael
AU - Khuddus, Matheen
AU - Caputo, Christopher
AU - Larkin, Timothy
AU - Askari, Raza
AU - Nsair, Ali
AU - Akhtar, Yasir
AU - Lin, Lang
AU - McAllister, David
AU - Park, James
AU - Gorwara, Simon
N1 - Funding Information:
Dr. Basir has received consultant fees from Abiomed, Abbott Vascular, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, Procyrion, and Zoll. Dr. Kolski has served on a scientific advisory board for Abiomed. Dr Kaki has received speaker and proctor fees from Abiomed. Dr. Kapur has received institutional research grants/speaker fees/consulting honoraria from Abbott, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, LivaNova, MD Start, and Precardia. Dr. Riley has received consultant and speaker fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Asahi. Dr. Tehrani has received consultant/speaker fees from Abiomed and Medtronic. Dr. Truesdell has received consultant/speaker fees from Abiomed. Dr. Lasorda has received speaker fees from Abiomed. Dr. Bharadwaj has received speaker and proctor fees from Abiomed. Dr. Hanson has received speaker fees from Abiomed. Dr. O'Neill has received consultant fees from Abiomed, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; speaker fees from Abiomed and Medtronic; and grant/research support from St. Jude Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abiomed. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation
PY - 2020/5/25
Y1 - 2020/5/25
N2 - Objectives: This study sought to compare outcomes of patients enrolled in the NCSI (National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative) trial who were treated using a revascularization strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of multivessel PCI (MV-PCI) versus culprit-vessel PCI (CV-PCI). Background: In patients with multivessel disease who present with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS), intervening on the nonculprit vessel is controversial. There are conflicting published reports and lack of evidence, particularly in patients treated with early mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Methods: From July 2016 to December 2019, patients who presented with AMICS to 57 participating hospitals were included in this analysis. All patients were treated using a standard shock protocol emphasizing early MCS, revascularization, and invasive hemodynamic monitoring. Patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) were analyzed according to whether CV-PCI or MV-PCI was undertaken during the index procedure. Results: Of 198 patients with MVCAD, 126 underwent MV-PCI (64%) and 72 underwent CV-PCI (36%). Demographics between the cohorts were similar with respect to age, sex, history of diabetes, prior PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting, and prior history of myocardial infarction. Patients who underwent MV-PCI had a trend toward more severe impairment of cardiac output and worse lactate clearance on presentation, and cardiac performance was significantly worse at 12 h. However, 24 h from PCI, the hemometabolic derangements were similar. Survival and rates of acute kidney injury were not significantly different between groups (69.8% MV-PCI vs. 65.3% CV-PCI; p = 0.51; and 29.9% vs. 34.2%; p = 0.64, respectively). Conclusions: In patients with MVCAD presenting with AMICS treated with early MCS, revascularization of nonculprit lesions was associated with similar hospital survival and acute kidney injury when compared with culprit-only PCI. Selective nonculprit PCI can be safety performed in AMICS in patients supported with mechanical circulatory support.
AB - Objectives: This study sought to compare outcomes of patients enrolled in the NCSI (National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative) trial who were treated using a revascularization strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of multivessel PCI (MV-PCI) versus culprit-vessel PCI (CV-PCI). Background: In patients with multivessel disease who present with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS), intervening on the nonculprit vessel is controversial. There are conflicting published reports and lack of evidence, particularly in patients treated with early mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Methods: From July 2016 to December 2019, patients who presented with AMICS to 57 participating hospitals were included in this analysis. All patients were treated using a standard shock protocol emphasizing early MCS, revascularization, and invasive hemodynamic monitoring. Patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) were analyzed according to whether CV-PCI or MV-PCI was undertaken during the index procedure. Results: Of 198 patients with MVCAD, 126 underwent MV-PCI (64%) and 72 underwent CV-PCI (36%). Demographics between the cohorts were similar with respect to age, sex, history of diabetes, prior PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting, and prior history of myocardial infarction. Patients who underwent MV-PCI had a trend toward more severe impairment of cardiac output and worse lactate clearance on presentation, and cardiac performance was significantly worse at 12 h. However, 24 h from PCI, the hemometabolic derangements were similar. Survival and rates of acute kidney injury were not significantly different between groups (69.8% MV-PCI vs. 65.3% CV-PCI; p = 0.51; and 29.9% vs. 34.2%; p = 0.64, respectively). Conclusions: In patients with MVCAD presenting with AMICS treated with early MCS, revascularization of nonculprit lesions was associated with similar hospital survival and acute kidney injury when compared with culprit-only PCI. Selective nonculprit PCI can be safety performed in AMICS in patients supported with mechanical circulatory support.
KW - acute myocardial infarction
KW - cardiogenic shock
KW - culprit
KW - multivessel
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85084362103&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85084362103&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.03.012
DO - 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.03.012
M3 - Article
C2 - 32360256
AN - SCOPUS:85084362103
SN - 1936-8798
VL - 13
SP - 1171
EP - 1178
JO - JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
JF - JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
IS - 10
ER -