+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Review of Cardiogenic Shock in Acute Myocardial Infarction

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Cardiogenic shock continues to be the most common cause of death in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction. It has also been frequently associated with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and patients with co-morbidities. Cardiogenic shock presents with low systolic blood pressure and clinical signs of hypoperfusion. Rapid diagnosis and supportive therapy in the form of medications, airway support and intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation is required. Initial stabilization can be followed by reperfusion by fibrinolytic therapy, emergent percutaneous intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The latter two have been found to decrease mortality in the long term. Research is being carried out on the role of inflammatory mediators in the clinical manifestation of cardiogenic shock. Mechanical support devices also show promise in the future.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 91

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Treatment of myocardial infarction in a coronary care unit. A two year experience with 250 patients.

           T Killip,  E Kimball (1967)
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group.

            17,187 patients entering 417 hospitals up to 24 hours (median 5 hours) after the onset of suspected acute myocardial infarction were randomised, with placebo control, between: (i) a 1-hour intravenous infusion of 1.5 MU of streptokinase; (ii) one month of 160 mg/day enteric-coated aspirin; (iii) both active treatments; or (iv) neither. Streptokinase alone and aspirin alone each produced a highly significant reduction in 5-week vascular mortality: 791/8592 (9.2%) among patients allocated streptokinase infusion vs 1029/8595 (12.0%) among those allocated placebo infusion (odds reduction: 25% SD 4; 2p less than 0.00001); 804/8587 (9.4%) vascular deaths among patients allocated aspirin tablets vs 1016/8600 (11.8%) among those allocated placebo tablets (odds reduction: 23% SD 4; 2p less than 0.00001). The combination of streptokinase and aspirin was significantly (2p less than 0.0001) better than either agent alone. Their separate effects on vascular deaths appeared to be additive: 343/4292 (8.0%) among patients allocated both active agents vs 568/4300 (13.2%) among those allocated neither (odds reduction: 42% SD 5; 95% confidence limits 34-50%). There was evidence of benefit from each agent even for patients treated late after pain onset (odds reductions at 0-4, 5-12, and 13-24 hours: 35% SD 6, 16% SD 7, and 21% SD 12 for streptokinase alone; 25% SD 7, 21% SD 7, and 21% SD 12 for aspirin alone; and 53% SD 8, 32% SD 9, and 38% SD 15 for the combination of streptokinase and aspirin). Streptokinase was associated with an excess of bleeds requiring transfusion (0.5% vs 0.2%) and of confirmed cerebral haemorrhage (0.1% vs 0.0%), but with fewer other strokes (0.6% vs 0.8%). These "other" strokes may have included a few undiagnosed cerebral haemorrhages, but still there was no increase in total strokes (0.7% streptokinase vs 0.8% placebo infusion). Aspirin significantly reduced non-fatal reinfarction (1.0% vs 2.0%) and non-fatal stroke (0.3% vs 0.6%), and was not associated with any significant increase in cerebral haemorrhage or in bleeds requiring transfusion. An excess of non-fatal reinfarction was reported when streptokinase was used alone, but this appeared to be entirely avoided by the addition of aspirin. Those allocated the combination of streptokinase and aspirin had significantly fewer reinfarctions (1.8% vs 2.9%), strokes (0.6% vs 1.1%), and deaths (8.0% vs 13.2%) than those allocated neither. The differences in vascular and in all-cause mortality produced by streptokinase and by aspirin remain highly significant (2p less than 0.001 for each) after the median of 15 months of follow-up thus far available.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The effectiveness of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically ill patients. SUPPORT Investigators.

              To examine the association between the use of right heart catheterization (RHC) during the first 24 hours of care in the intensive care unit (ICU) and subsequent survival, length of stay, intensity of care, and cost of care. Prospective cohort study. Five US teaching hospitals between 1989 and 1994. A total of 5735 critically ill adult patients receiving care in an ICU for 1 of 9 prespecified disease categories. Survival time, cost of care, intensity of care, and length of stay in the ICU and hospital, determined from the clinical record and from the National Death Index. A propensity score for RHC was constructed using multivariable logistic regression. Case-matching and multivariable regression modeling techniques were used to estimate the association of RHC with specific outcomes after adjusting for treatment selection using the propensity score. Sensitivity analysis was used to estimate the potential effect of an unidentified or missing covariate on the results. By case-matching analysis, patients with RHC had an increased 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.49). The mean cost (25th, 50th, 75th percentiles) per hospital stay was $49 300 ($17 000, $30 500, $56 600) with RHC and $35 700 ($11 300, $20 600, $39 200) without RHC. Mean length of stay in the ICU was 14.8 (5, 9, 17) days with RHC and 13.0 (4, 7, 14) days without RHC. These findings were all confirmed by multivariable modeling techniques. Subgroup analysis did not reveal any patient group or site for which RHC was associated with improved outcomes. Patients with higher baseline probability of surviving 2 months had the highest relative risk of death following RHC. Sensitivity analysis suggested that a missing covariate would have to increase the risk of death 6-fold and the risk of RHC 6-fold for a true beneficial effect of RHC to be misrepresented as harmful. In this observational study of critically ill patients, after adjustment for treatment selection bias, RHC was associated with increased mortality and increased utilization of resources. The cause of this apparent lack of benefit is unclear. The results of this analysis should be confirmed in other observational studies. These findings justify reconsideration of a randomized controlled trial of RHC and may guide patient selection for such a study.

                Author and article information

                Curr Cardiol Rev
                Current Cardiology Reviews
                Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
                February 2008
                : 4
                : 1
                : 34-40
                Department of Medicine, Aga Khan University, Stadium Road, P.O. Box 3500, Karachi, Pakistan
                Author notes
                [* ]Address correspondence to this author at the Department of Medicine, Aga Khan University, Stadium Road, P.O. Box 3500, Karachi, Pakistan; Tel: 92-21-4930051 Ext: 4700; Fax: 92-21-4934294; E-mail: sajid.dhakam@
                ©2008 Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestrictive use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.



                Comment on this article