Meta-analysis Comparing Culprit Vessel Only Versus Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Management of cardiogenic shock: a narrative review

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is characterized by low cardiac output and sustained tissue hypoperfusion that may result in end-organ dysfunction and death. CS is associated with high short-term mortality, and its management remains challenging despite recent advances in therapeutic options. Timely diagnosis and multidisciplinary team-based management have demonstrated favourable effects on outcomes. We aimed to review evidence-based practices for managing patients with ischemic and non-ischemic CS, detailing the multi-organ supports needed in this critically ill patient population.

Impact of Acute Myocardial Infarction Type on Prognosis in Female Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

There are limited data about mid-term prognosis according to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) type in female patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). In this study, we evaluated the impact of AMI type on prognosis in female patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for AMI complicated by CS. A total of 184 female patients who underwent PCI for AMI complicated by CS were enrolled from 12 centers in the Republic of Korea. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to AMI type: the ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (n = 114) and the non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (n = 70) group. Primary outcome was a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization). Propensity-score matching analysis was performed to reduce selection bias and potential confounding factors. During 12-month follow-up, a total of 73 MACEs occurred (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction group, 47 [41.2%] vs non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction group, 26 [37.1%], p = 0.643). Multivariate analysis revealed no significant difference in the incidence of MACE at 12 months between the 2 groups (adjusted hazard ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 2.37, p = 0.646). After propensity-score matching, the incidence of MACE at 12 months remained similar between the 2 groups (hazard ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 2.52, p = 0.413). The similarity in MACEs between the 2 groups was consistent across a variety of subgroups. In conclusion, after adjusting for baseline differences, AMI clinical type did not appear to increase the risk of MACEs at 12 months in female patients who underwent emergency PCI for AMI complicated by CS.

Management of Non-Culprit Lesions in STEMI Patients with Multivessel Disease

Multivessel disease is observed in approximately 50% of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Data from randomized clinical trials has shown that complete revascularization in the STEMI setting improves clinical outcomes by reducing the risk of reinfarction and urgent revascularization. However, the timing and modality of revascularization of non-culprit lesions are still debated. PCI of non-culprit lesions can be performed during the index primary PCI or as a staged procedure and can be guided by angiography, functional assessment, or intracoronary imaging. In this review, we summarize the available evidence about the management of non-culprit lesions in STEMI patients with or without cardiogenic shock.

Multivessel vs. Culprit Vessel-Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicating by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains controversial. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) compared to culprit vessel-only PCI (CO-PCI) for the treatment, only in patients with STEMI with CS.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted. Studies assessed the efficacy outcomes of short (in-hospital or 30 days)/long-term mortality, cardiac death, myocardial reinfarction, repeat revascularization, and safety outcomes of stroke, bleeding, acute renal failure with MV-PCI vs. CO-PCI in patients with STEMI with CS were included. The publication bias and sensitivity analysis were also performed.

Results

A total of 15 studies were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in short- and long-term mortality in patients treated with MV-PCI compared to CO-PCI group [odds ratio (OR) = 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.92–1.48; OR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58–1.28]. Similarly, there were no significant differences in cardiac death (OR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.44–1.00), myocardial reinfarction (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.77–2.00), repeat revascularization (OR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.40–1.42), bleeding (OR = 1.53; 95% CI, 0.53–4.43), or stroke (OR = 1.42; 95% CI, 0.90–2.23) between the two groups. There was a higher risk in acute renal failure (OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04–1.69) in patients treated with MV-PCI when compared with CO-PCI.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggests that there may be no significant benefit for patients with STEMI complicating CS treated with MV-PCI compared with CO-PCI, and patients are at increased risk of developing acute renal failure after MV-PCI intervention.

Interventional treatment of acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Acute revascularization is with some evidence the only intervention proven to improve the prognosis in myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock but several interventions are continuously being investigated in order to increase survival among these patients. In this review, several aspects related to the interventional treatment of cardiogenic shock are discussed chronologically from symptom debut to leaving the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the randomized CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, a culprit-only revascularization strategy was reported superior to immediate complete revascularization among patients with multivessel disease. Recent large-scale observational data underline the marked prognostic importance of time from medical contact to revascularization in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock. Moreover, studies suggest a potential beneficial effect of a transradial vascular access as well as early initialization of mechanical circulatory support in carefully selected patients. This, however, needs further validation.

SUMMARY

Acute revascularization remains a crucial part of the initial management of acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock. Among cardiogenic shock patients presenting with multivessel disease, a culprit-only approach should be the routine strategy. Time to revascularization plays a crucial role in the setting of cardiogenic shock, why prehospital optimization and triaging may be the most important factors in order to improve prognosis in AMI-related cardiogenic shock.

Multivessel Versus Culprit-Vessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare in-hospital outcomes and long-term mortality of multivessel versus culprit vessel-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), multivessel disease (MVD) and cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefits of complete revascularization in patients with NSTEMI, MVD, and cardiogenic shock remain uncertain.

METHODS

Among 25,324 patients included in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry from July 2009 to March 2018, the rates of in-hospital procedural outcomes were compared between those undergoing multivessel PCI and those undergoing culprit vessel-only PCI after 1:1 propensity score matching. Among patients aged ≥65 years matched to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services database, long-term mortality was compared using proportional hazards analysis.

RESULTS

Multivessel PCI was performed in 9,791 patients (38.7%), which increased from 32.2% in 2010 to 44.2% in 2017 (p for trend <0.001). After 1:1 propensity matching (n = 7,864 in each group), those undergoing multivessel PCI had a 3.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0% to 5.0%) lower absolute rate of in-hospital mortality (30.9% vs. 34.4%; p < 0.001; odds ratio [OR]: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.91), but a higher risk for bleeding (13.2% vs. 10.8%; p < 0.001; OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.40) and new requirement for dialysis (5.7% vs. 4.6%; p = 0.001; OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.46). Among those surviving to discharge, all-cause mortality was similar through 7 years (conditional hazard ratio: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.03; p = 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 40% of patients with NSTEMI with MVD and cardiogenic shock underwent multivessel PCI, which was associated with lower in-hospital mortality but greater peri-procedural complications. Among those surviving to discharge, multivessel PCI did not confer additional long-term mortality benefit.

Prognostic importance of culprit lesion location in cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

As existing results are diverging, and the patient population has changed significantly, this study sought to investigate the prognostic importance of the culprit lesion location in patients with cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction (AMICS), in a contemporary and unselected patient population.

METHODS

From the recruitment area of two tertiary heart centres in Denmark, covering 3.9 million citizens corresponding to two-thirds of the Danish population, all AMICS patients in the period of 2010-2017 were individually identified and validated through patient records.

RESULTS

A total of 1716 patients with AMICS were identified. Immediate revascularization was performed in 1482 patients (86%). Among these, a culprit lesion in the left main coronary artery (LM) was associated with the highest 30-day mortality rate (66%), plogrank<0.0001, which persisted after multivariable adjustment for variables known to be associated with mortality in AMICS, including age, gender, heart rate, lactate, diabetes, stroke and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, p=0.002. A culprit lesion in the remaining coronary arteries had comparable and lower 30-day mortality (43-48%), plogrank=0.39. Patients with multivessel disease had comparable prognoses irrespective of whether a culprit-only or multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention strategy was used (plogrank=0.80), and whether partial or complete revascularization was achieved (plogrank=0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Among AMICS patients undergoing revascularization, a LM culprit lesion was associated with the highest short-term mortality, whereas patients with a culprit lesion in the remaining coronary arteries had comparable and lower mortality rates. Multivessel disease patients had similar prognoses irrespective of percutaneous coronary intervention approach and whether partial or complete revascularization was achieved.