9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Sex-Specific Management in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock : A Substudy of the CULPRIT-SHOCK Trial

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          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.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Women are more likely to suffer and die from cardiogenic shock (CS) as the most severe complication of acute myocardial infarction. Data concerning optimal management for women with CS are scarce. Aim of this study was to better define characteristics of women experiencing CS and to the influence of sex on different treatment strategies.

          Methods:

          In the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial (The Culprit Lesion Only PCI Versus Multivessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock), patients with CS complicating acute myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to one of the following revascularization strategies: either percutaneous coronary intervention of the culprit-lesion-only or immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention. Primary end point was composite of death from any cause or severe renal failure leading to renal replacement therapy within 30 days. We investigated sex-specific differences in general and according to the revascularization strategies.

          Results:

          Among all 686 randomized patients included in the analysis, 24% were women. Women were older and had more often diabetes mellitus and renal insufficiency, whereas they had less often history of previous acute myocardial infarction and smoking. After 30 days, the primary clinical end point was not significantly different between groups (56% women versus 49% men; odds ratio, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.91–1.84]; P =0.15). There was no interaction between sex and coronary revascularization strategy regarding mortality and renal failure ( P interaction =0.11). The primary end point occurred in 56% of women treated by the culprit-lesion-only strategy versus 42% men, whereas 55% of women and 55% of men in the multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention group.

          Conclusions:

          Although women presented with a different risk profile, mortality and renal replacement were similar to men. Sex did not influence mortality and renal failure according to the different coronary revascularization strategies. Based on these data, women and men presenting with CS complicating acute myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease should not be treated differently. However, further randomized trials powered to address potential sex-specific differences in CS are still necessary.

          Registration:

          URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01927549.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

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

          Standardized bleeding definitions for cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium.

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

            2016 ACC/AHA Guideline Focused Update on Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines: An Update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery, 2012 ACC/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease, 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction, 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Non–ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes, and 2014 ACC/AHA Guideline on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Management of Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery

            Circulation, 134(10)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock.

              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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions
                Circ: Cardiovascular Interventions
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                1941-7640
                1941-7632
                March 2020
                March 2020
                : 13
                : 3
                Affiliations
                [1 ]From the Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig, Germany (M.R.G., S.D., H.T.).
                [2 ]Cardiology Department, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland (M.R.G., R.V.J.).
                [3 ]Klinikum Ludwigshafen, Germany (U.Z.).
                [4 ]German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Berlin, Germany (S.D., R.M.-S., G.F.).
                [5 ]Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology/ Angiology/Intensive Care Medicine, University Heart Center Lübeck, Germany (S.d.W.-T., J.P., R.M.-S., G.F.).
                [6 ]Institut für Herzinfarktforschung, Ludwigshafen, Germany (T.O., S.S.).
                [7 ]Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland (J.S.).
                [8 ]3rd Department of Internal Medicine, Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Wilhelminenhospital and Sigmund Freud University, Medical School, Vienna, Austria (K.H.).
                [9 ]Department of Cardiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland (S.W.).
                [10 ]Department of Cardiology, Sorbonne Université, Institut de Cardiologie (AP-HP), hôpital Pitié Salpêtrière, Paris, France (G.M.).
                [11 ]Department of Cardiology, Manzoni Hospital, Lecco, Italy (S.S.).
                Article
                10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008537
                32151161
                f58f33ca-4e4d-4b39-a968-aacf673a46b6
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article