Aggressive intervention for myocardial infarction: angioplasty, stents, and intra-aortic balloon pumping

Percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock in the SHOCK Trial Registry

BACKGROUND

The SHOCK Registry prospectively enrolled patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction in 36 multinational centers.

METHODS

Cardiogenic shock was predominantly attributable to left ventricular pump failure in 884 patients. Of these, 276 underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after shock onset and are the subject of this report.

RESULTS

The majority (78%) of patients undergoing angiography had multivessel disease. As the number of diseased arteries rose from 1 to 3, mortality rates rose from 34.2% to 51.2%. Patients who underwent PCI had lower in-hospital mortality rates than did patients treated medically (46.4% vs 78.0%, P < .001), even after adjustment for patient differences and survival bias (P = .037). Before PCI, the culprit artery was occluded (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction grade 0 or 1 flow) in 76.3%. After PCI, the in-hospital mortality rate was 33.3% if reperfusion was complete (grade 3 flow), 50.0% with incomplete reperfusion (grade 2 flow), and 85.7% with absent reperfusion (grade 0 or 1 flow) (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective, multicenter registry of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock is consistent with a reduction in mortality rates as the result of percutaneous coronary revascularization. Coronary artery patency was an important predictor of outcome. Measures to promote early and rapid reperfusion appear critically important in improving the otherwise poor outcome associated with cardiogenic shock.

Cardiogenic shock

Mortality rates in patients with cardiogenic shock remain frustratingly high. Its pathophysiology involves a downward spiral in which ischemia causes myocardial dysfunction, which in turn worsens ischemia. Areas of viable but nonfunctional myocardium can contribute to the development of cardiogenic shock. Rapid diagnosis and prompt initiation of supportive therapy to maintain blood pressure and cardiac output, followed by expeditious coronary revascularization, are crucial. The SHOCK multicenter randomized trial has provided important new data that support a strategy of emergent cardiac catheterization and revascularization with angioplasty or coronary surgery when feasible. This strategy can improve survival and represents standard therapy at this time. In hospitals without direct angioplasty capability, stabilization with IABP and thrombolysis followed by transfer to a tertiary care facility may be the best option.

Implications of the timing of onset of cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK?

OBJECTIVES

We sought to examine the implications of the timing of onset of cardiogenic shock (CS) after acute myocardial infarction (MI).

BACKGROUND

Little information is available about the relationships between timing, clinical substrate, management and outcomes of shock.

METHODS

The multinational SHOCK Trial Registry enrolled MI patients with CS from 1993 to 1997. Cardiogenic shock was predominantly attributable to left ventricular (LV) failure in 815 Registry patients for whom temporal data were available. We examined factors related to the timing of shock onset and the relation of temporal onset to in-hospital outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall, shock developed a median of 6.2 h after MI symptom onset. Shock onset varied by culprit artery: left main, median 1.7 h; right, 3.5 h; circumflex, 3.9 h; left anterior descending (LAD), 11.0 h; saphenous vein graft, 10.9 h (p = 0.025). Early shock (< 24 h) occurred in 74.1% and was associated with chest pain at shock onset, ST-segment elevation in two or more leads, multiple infarct locations, inferior MI, left main disease and smoking. Late shock (> or = 24 h) was associated with recurrent ischemia, Q waves in two or more leads and LAD culprit vessel. Mortality was higher in patients with early versus late shock (62.6% vs. 53.6%, p = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

Shock onset after acute MI occurred within 24 h in 74% of the patients with predominant LV failure. Mortality was slightly higher in patients developing shock early rather than later. Many factors influence when shock develops, which has implications for its management.

Primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction in the elderly

Elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction present a formidable therapeutic challenge. Although there appears to be a survival benefit from thrombolytic therapy for the eligible elderly patient, persistent concerns regarding the risk of intracranial hemorrhage impedes utilization in this age group. Primary or direct angioplasty of the infarct artery has been proven to be an effective modality for reperfusion. Randomized comparisons suggest an advantage over thrombolysis in terms of achieving superior patency and mitigating recurrent ischemic events. Primary angioplasty expands the reperfusion population by including many patients ineligible for thrombolysis and is more effective for treating patients at high risk, such as those with cardiogenic shock. Acute angiography accumulates important prognostic and decision-facilitating information. The benefits of primary angioplasty are more impressive for the aging patient. The survival gain and reduction in intracranial hemorrhage may combine to magnify the advantages of performing angioplasty on patients in this group. Emerging evidence concerning the aging population validates continued examination of this invasive reperfusion approach.

[Reperfusion therapy and mechanical circulatory support in patients in cardiogenic shock]

Cardiogenic shock is a state of inadequate tissue perfusion due to cardiac dysfunction, which is most commonly caused by acute myocardial infarction. The pathophysiology of cardiogenic shock is characterized by a downward spiral: ischemia causes myocardial dysfunction, which, in turn, augments the ischemic damage and the energetical imbalance. With conservative therapy, mortality rates for patients with cardiogenic shock are frustratingly high reaching more than 80%. Additional thrombolytic therapy has not been shown to significantly improve survival in such patients. Emergency cardiac catheterization and coronary angioplasty, however, seem to improve the outcome in shock-patients, which most probably is due to rapid and complete revascularization generally reached by angioplasty. In addition to interventional therapy with rapid coronary revascularization, the use of mechanical circulatory support may interrupt the vicious cycle in cardiogenic shock by stabilizing hemodynamics and the metabolic situation. Different cardiac assist devices are available for cardiologists and cardiac surgeons: 1. intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP), 2. implantable turbine-pump (Hemopump), 3. percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass support (CPS), 4. right heart, left heart, or biventricular assist devices placed by thoracotomy, and 5. intra- and extrathoracic total artificial hearts. Since percutaneous application is possible with IABP, Hemopump and CPS, these devices are currently used in interventional cardiology. The basic goals of the less invasive intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP; Figure 1) are to stabilize circulatory collapse, to increase coronary perfusion and myocardial oxygen supply, and to decrease left ventricular workload and myocardial oxygen demand (Figure 2). Since the advent of percutaneous placement, IABP has been used by an increasing number of institutions (Figure 3). In addition to cardiogenic shock, the system may be of use in a variety of other indications in the catheterization laboratory and intensive care unit, including weaning from percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass, in ischaemic left ventricular failure, in unstable angina, in high risk PTCA, and in prophylactic support in patients with myocardial infarction and successful revascularization. Animal experimental data showed that IABP may improve success of thrombolysis and recent clinical data suggest that survival is enhanced and transfer for revascularization is facilitated when patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock undergo thrombolysis and IABP rather than thrombolysis alone. A lot of studies had demonstrated before, that combined use of counterpulsation and revascularization therapy (i.e. coronary bypass surgery or angioplasty) may improve prognosis in patients with myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (Table 1). In such patients, early treatment with IABP is most important: Multivariate analysis identified early IABP-support with a duration of shock to IABP-treatment of > or = 4 hours as an independent predictor of a positive short-term outcome. In shock-patients with postinfarction ventricular septal defect, IABP provides a marked hemodynamic improvement, and a significant decrease in shunt-flow (Figure 5). However, despite initial stabilization with IABP, such patients need immediate surgical repair of the septal defect to avoid hemodynamic deterioration. The rate of complications related to percutaneous IABP was significantly attenuated by employing catheters of reduced size. Using 9.5-F catheters, a long duration of counterpulsation emerged as the most significant factor associated with complications. In our hospital, those patients with 9.5-F catheters in whom counterpulsation did not exceed 48 hours had a low complication rate of 3.9%. The Hemopump is a catheter-mounted transvalvular left ventricular assist device intended for surgical placement via the femoral artery (Figures 6 and 7). (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Procedural results and long-term clinical outcomes following coronary stenting in perimyocardial infarction syndromes

Initial experiences with coronary stents in acute coronary syndromes have suggested higher risk of ischemic complications and stent thrombosis. We evaluated in-hospital and 1-year clinical outcomes of coronary stent implantation in perimyocardial infarction (MI) syndromes. We studied 334 consecutive patients undergoing stent interventions in the first week after acute MI. Stenting was performed within 24 hours (n = 31), within 1 to 3 days (n = 95), and within 4 to 7 days (n = 208). Stents were used to improve angioplasty results and to treat dissections and abrupt/threatened closure. Postprocedure anticoagulation regimens were aspirin, ticlopidine, and low molecular weight heparin. Overall procedural success was achieved in 93% of patients. Major in-hospital complications included death (1.0%), recurrent Q-wave MI (0.6%), and emergent bypass surgery (3.0%). Stent thrombosis occurred in 0.6% of patients. At follow-up, cardiac event-free survival was 80%, mortality 2.2%, recurrent MI 3.5%, and target lesion revascularization 11%. We conclude that coronary stenting in periinfarction syndromes was effective in achieving sustained clinical benefit up to 1 year with low morbidity and mortality. Thus, stents seem to be a viable therapeutic strategy in patients sustaining perimyocardial infarction syndromes.

Primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction

The use of thrombolytic therapy has been widely accepted for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Despite improving mortality, thrombolytic therapy may be contraindicated in many patients presenting with myocardial infarction and is associated with a small, yet significant risk of hemorrhagic sequelae. This article outlines the rationale behind reperfusion therapy, the use of pharmacological thrombolysis and the role of adjunctive angioplasty. The potential advantages of a therapeutic strategy of primary angioplasty, instead of thrombolysis, are discussed. These include anatomical definition, risk stratification, reduced recurrent ischemia, enhanced coronary perfusion and improved coronary patency. The randomized trials in which primary angioplasty and thrombolytic therapy were compared are reviewed. We conclude that angioplasty results in a reduction of short-term mortality and nonfatal reinfarction and therefore advocate the routine use of coronary angioplasty as a primary reperfusion strategy for acute myocardial infarction. The potential limitations of primary angioplasty in the community hospital setting are discussed. Finally, we examine the roles of adjunctive mechanical (e.g. stents) and pharmacological (e.g. Abciximab) means of further enhancing outcomes after primary angioplasty.