scholarly journals Invasive Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Circulation ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy D. Henry ◽  
Matthew I. Tomey ◽  
Jacqueline E. Tamis-Holland ◽  
Holger Thiele ◽  
Sunil V. Rao ◽  
...  

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the most common cause of mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The SHOCK trial (Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock) demonstrated a survival benefit with early revascularization in patients with CS complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMICS) 20 years ago. After an initial improvement in mortality related to revascularization, mortality rates have plateaued. A recent Society of Coronary Angiography and Interventions classification scheme was developed to address the wide range of CS presentations. In addition, a recent scientific statement from the American Heart Association recommended the development of CS centers using standardized protocols for diagnosis and management of CS, including mechanical circulatory support devices (MCS). A number of CS programs have implemented various protocols for treating patients with AMICS, including the use of MCS, and have published promising results using such protocols. Despite this, practice patterns in the cardiac catheterization laboratory vary across health systems, and there are inconsistencies in the use or timing of MCS for AMICS. Furthermore, mortality benefit from MCS devices in AMICS has yet to be established in randomized clinical trials. In this article, we outline the best practices for the contemporary interventional management of AMICS, including coronary revascularization, the use of MCS, and special considerations such as the treatment of patients with AMICS with cardiac arrest.

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (02) ◽  
pp. 138-142
Author(s):  
Janine Pöss ◽  
Holger Thiele

ZusammenfassungBei 5–6% aller Patienten mit akutem Myokardinfarkt, die einer Koronarangiografie unterzogen werden, liegt ein Myokardinfarkt mit nicht obstruktiven Koronarien (myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries; MINOCA) vor. Eine angemessene Diagnostik ist erforderlich, um die zugrunde liegende Ursache zu identifizieren und eine spezifische Therapie einzuleiten. Im Jahr 2019 hat die American Heart Association (AHA) in einem Scientific Statement eine überarbeitete Definition für den Begriff MINOCA vorgestellt und diese in ein klinisch sinnvolles Gerüst mit diagnostischen und therapeutischen Algorithmen zum Management von Patienten mit MINOCA eingebettet . Die im August 2020 aktualisierte Leitlinie der European Society of Cardiology (ESC) zum akuten Koronarsyndrom ohne persistierende ST-Strecken-Hebungen (NSTE-ACS) widmet dem Thema MINOCA ein eigenes, neues Kapitel . Folgender Beitrag fasst die wesentlichen Aspekte zusammen und gibt einen Überblick über dieses Krankheitsbild.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Behnam N Tehrani ◽  
Abdulla A Damluji ◽  
Wayne B Batchelor

: Despite advances in early reperfusion and a technologic renaissance in the space of mechanical circulatory support (MCS), cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the leading cause of in-hospital mortality following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Given the challenges inherent to conducting adequately powered randomized controlled trials in this time-sensitive, hemodynamically complex, and highly lethal syndrome, treatment recommendations have been derived from AMI patient without shock. In this review, we aimed to (1) examine the pathophysiology and the new classification system for CS; (2) provide a comprehensive evidence-based review for best practices for interventional management of AMI-CS in the cardiac catheterization laboratory; and (3) highlight the concept of how frailty and geriatric syndromes can be integrated in the decision process and where medical futility lies in the spectrum of AMI-CS care. Management strategies in the cardiac catheterization laboratory for CS include optimal vascular access, periprocedural antithrombotic therapy, culprit lesion versus multi-vessel revascularization, selective utilization of hemodynamic MCS tailored to individual shock hemometabolic profiles, and management of cardiac arrest. Efforts to advance clinical evidence for patients with CS should be concentrated on (1) the coordination of multi-center registries; (2) development of pragmatic clinical trial designed to evaluate innovative therapies; (3) establishment of multidisciplinary care models that will inform quality care and improve clinical outcomes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document