Right Ventricular Myocardial Infarction—A Tale of Two Ventricles

In current international guidelines, intraaortic balloon counterpulsation is considered to be a class I treatment for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. However, evidence is based mainly on registry data, and there is a paucity of randomized clinical trials. In this randomized, prospective, open-label, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 600 patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction to intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP group, 301 patients) or no intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (control group, 299 patients). All patients were expected to undergo early revascularization (by means of percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery) and to receive the best available medical therapy. The primary efficacy end point was 30-day all-cause mortality. Safety assessments included major bleeding, peripheral ischemic complications, sepsis, and stroke. A total of 300 patients in the IABP group and 298 in the control group were included in the analysis of the primary end point. At 30 days, 119 patients in the IABP group (39.7%) and 123 patients in the control group (41.3%) had died (relative risk with IABP, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.17; P=0.69). There were no significant differences in secondary end points or in process-of-care measures, including the time to hemodynamic stabilization, the length of stay in the intensive care unit, serum lactate levels, the dose and duration of catecholamine therapy, and renal function. The IABP group and the control group did not differ significantly with respect to the rates of major bleeding (3.3% and 4.4%, respectively; P=0.51), peripheral ischemic complications (4.3% and 3.4%, P=0.53), sepsis (15.7% and 20.5%, P=0.15), and stroke (0.7% and 1.7%, P=0.28). The use of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation did not significantly reduce 30-day mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction for whom an early revascularization strategy was planned. (Funded by the German Research Foundation and others; IABP-SHOCK II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00491036.).

The leading cause of death in patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction is cardiogenic shock. We conducted a randomized trial to evaluate early revascularization in patients with cardiogenic shock. Patients with shock due to left ventricular failure complicating myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to emergency revascularization (152 patients) or initial medical stabilization (150 patients). Revascularization was accomplished by either coronary-artery bypass grafting or angioplasty. Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation was performed in 86 percent of the patients in both groups. The primary end point was mortality from all causes at 30 days. Six-month survival was a secondary end point. The mean age of the patients was 66+/-10 years, 32 percent were women and 55 percent were transferred from other hospitals. The median time to the onset of shock was 5.6 hours after infarction, and most infarcts were anterior in location. Ninety-seven percent of the patients assigned to revascularization underwent early coronary angiography, and 87 percent underwent revascularization; only 2.7 percent of the patients assigned to medical therapy crossed over to early revascularization without clinical indication. Overall mortality at 30 days did not differ significantly between the revascularization and medical-therapy groups (46.7 percent and 56.0 percent, respectively; difference, -9.3 percent; 95 percent confidence interval for the difference, -20.5 to 1.9 percent; P=0.11). Six-month mortality was lower in the revascularization group than in the medical-therapy group (50.3 percent vs. 63.1 percent, P=0.027). In patients with cardiogenic shock, emergency revascularization did not significantly reduce overall mortality at 30 days. However, after six months there was a significant survival benefit. Early revascularization should be strongly considered for patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

Both dopamine and norepinephrine are recommended as first-line vasopressor agents in the treatment of shock. There is a continuing controversy about whether one agent is superior to the other. In this multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned patients with shock to receive either dopamine or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor therapy to restore and maintain blood pressure. When blood pressure could not be maintained with a dose of 20 microg per kilogram of body weight per minute for dopamine or a dose of 0.19 microg per kilogram per minute for norepinephrine, open-label norepinephrine, epinephrine, or vasopressin could be added. The primary outcome was the rate of death at 28 days after randomization; secondary end points included the number of days without need for organ support and the occurrence of adverse events. The trial included 1679 patients, of whom 858 were assigned to dopamine and 821 to norepinephrine. The baseline characteristics of the groups were similar. There was no significant between-group difference in the rate of death at 28 days (52.5% in the dopamine group and 48.5% in the norepinephrine group; odds ratio with dopamine, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.42; P=0.10). However, there were more arrhythmic events among the patients treated with dopamine than among those treated with norepinephrine (207 events [24.1%] vs. 102 events [12.4%], P<0.001). A subgroup analysis showed that dopamine, as compared with norepinephrine, was associated with an increased rate of death at 28 days among the 280 patients with cardiogenic shock but not among the 1044 patients with septic shock or the 263 with hypovolemic shock (P=0.03 for cardiogenic shock, P=0.19 for septic shock, and P=0.84 for hypovolemic shock, in Kaplan-Meier analyses). Although there was no significant difference in the rate of death between patients with shock who were treated with dopamine as the first-line vasopressor agent and those who were treated with norepinephrine, the use of dopamine was associated with a greater number of adverse events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00314704.) 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society