In-hospital outcomes of acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock caused by right coronary artery occlusion vs. left coronary artery occlusion
- 77 Downloads
In-hospital outcomes of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with cardiogenic shock (CS) were still not satisfactory even in the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) era. The aim of this study was to compare in-hospital outcomes of AMI with CS caused by right coronary artery (RCA) occlusion vs. left coronary artery (LCA) occlusion. Consecutive 894 AMI patients from January 2010 to March 2015 were screened for inclusion. A total of 114 AMI patients with CS were included as the final study population, and were divided into the RCA group (n = 56) and LCA group (n = 58). The patient characteristics were compared between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to show whether the RCA group was associated with better outcomes even after controlling confounding factors. In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the RCA group (8.9%) than in the LCA group (46.6%) (P < 0.001). The RCA group (vs. the LCA group) was inversely associated with in-hospital death (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02–0.21, P < 0.001) after controlling covariates. Aspartate transaminase value (per 50 U/L incremental: OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.03–1.45, P = 0.02), aging (per 10-year-old incremental: OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.26–3.63, P = 0.01) and using VA-ECMO (OR 22.13, 95% CI 5.22–93.90, P < 0.001) were also significantly associated with in-hospital death. In conclusion, among AMI patients with CS, IRA of RCA was significantly associated with the better in-hospital outcome.
KeywordsCardiogenic shock Acute coronary syndrome Infarct-related artery In-hospital outcome
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
This study was approved by the institutional review board, and written informed consent was waived because of the retrospective study design.
- 2.Trzeciak P, Gierlotka M, Gasior M, Lekston A, Wilczek K, Slonka G, et al. Mortality of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock treated by PCI is correlated to the infarct-related artery—results from the PL-ACS Registry. Int J Cardiol. 2013;166:193–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Kunadian V, Qiu W, Ludman P, Redwood S, Curzen N, Stables R, et al. Outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock following percutaneous coronary intervention in the contemporary era: an analysis from the BCIS database (British Cardiovascular Intervention Society). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:1374–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Wayangankar SA, Bangalore S, McCoy LA, Jneid H, Latif F, Karrowni W, et al. Temporal trends and outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions for cardiogenic shock in the setting of acute myocardial infarction: a report from the CathPCI Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:341–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Ishihara M, Fujino M, Ogawa H, Yasuda S, Noguchi T, Nakao K, et al. Clinical presentation, management and outcome of Japanese patients with acute myocardial infarction in the Troponin Era—Japanese Registry of Acute Myocardial Infarction Diagnosed by Universal Definition (J-MINUET). Circ J. 2015;79:1255–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Gorter TM, Lexis CP, Hummel YM, Lipsic E, Nijveldt R, Willems TP, et al. Right ventricular function after acute myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (from the glycometabolic intervention as adjunct to primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction III trial). Am J Cardiol. 2016;118:338–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, Frohlich G, Bott-Flugel L, Byrne R, et al. A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:1584–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Ellis SG, O’Neill WW, Bates ER, Walton JA Jr, Nabel EG, Werns SW, et al. Implications for patient triage from survival and left ventricular functional recovery analyses in 500 patients treated with coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1989;13:1251–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Goldberg RJ, Spencer FA, Gore JM, Lessard D, Yarzebski J. Thirty-year trends (1975 to 2005) in the magnitude of, management of, and hospital death rates associated with cardiogenic shock in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a population-based perspective. Circulation. 2009;119:1211–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Nguyen HL, Yarzebski J, Lessard D, Gore JM, McManus DD, Goldberg RJ. Ten-year (2001–2011) trends in the incidence rates and short-term outcomes of early versus late onset cardiogenic shock after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6:e005566.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar