Immediate non-culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: a swinging pendulum.
Immediate non-culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: a swinging pendulum.
Project description:BackgroundThe CULPRIT-SHOCK trial compared two treatment strategies for patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock: (a) culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention (CO-PCI), with additional staged revascularisation if indicated, and (b) immediate multivessel PCI (MV-PCI).MethodsA German societal and national health service perspective was considered for three different analyses. The cost utility analysis (CUA) estimated costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) based on a pre-trial decision analytic model taking a lifelong time horizon. In addition, a within trial CUA estimated QALYs and costs for 1 year. Finally, the cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) used the composite primary outcome, mortality and renal failure at 30-day follow-up, and the within trial costs. Econometric and survival analysis on the trial data was used for the estimation of the model parameters. Subgroup analysis was performed following an economic protocol.ResultsThe lifelong CUA showed an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER), CO-PCI vs. MV-PCI, of €7010 per QALY and a probability of CO-PCI being the most cost-effective strategy > 64% at a €30,000 threshold. The ICER for the within trial CUA was €14,600 and the incremental cost per case of death/renal failure avoided at 30-day follow-up was €9010. Cost-effectiveness improved with patient age and for those without diabetes.ConclusionsThe estimates of cost-effectiveness for CO-PCI vs. MV-PCI have been shown to change depending on the time horizon and type of economic evaluation performed. The results favoured a long-term horizon analysis for avoiding underestimation of QALY gains from the CO-PCI arm.
Project description:IntroductionEmergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion for patients with acute myocardial infarctions is an accepted practice. A majority of patients present with multivessel disease with additional relevant stenoses apart from the culprit lesion. In haemodynamically stable patients, there is increasing evidence from randomised trials to support the practice of immediate complete revascularisation. However, in the presence of cardiogenic shock, the optimal management strategy for additional non-culprit lesions is unknown. A multicentre randomised controlled trial, CULPRIT-SHOCK, is examining whether culprit vessel only PCI with potentially subsequent staged revascularisation is more effective than immediate multivessel PCI. This paper describes the intended economic evaluation of the trial.Methods and analysisThe economic evaluation will be conducted using a pre-trial decision model and within-trial analysis. The modelling-based analysis will provide expected costs and health outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over the lifetime for the cohort of patients included in the trial. The within-trial analysis will provide estimates of cost per life saved at 30 days and in 1 year, and estimates of health-related quality of life. Bootstrapping and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will be used to address any uncertainty around these estimates. Different types of regression models within a generalised estimating equation framework will be used to examine how the total cost and quality-adjusted life years are explained by patients' characteristics, revascularisation strategy, country and centre. The cost-effectiveness analysis will be from the perspective of each country's national health services, where costs will be expressed in euros adjusted for purchasing power parity.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the study was granted by the local Ethics Committee at each recruiting centre. The economic evaluation analyses will be published in peer-reviewed journals of the concerned literature and communicated through the profiles of the authors at www.twitter.com and www.researchgate.net.Trial registration numberNCT01927549; Pre-results.
Project description:Background Early revascularization of the culprit vessel is the most effective treatment for reducing the risk of mortality from acute STEMI with and without cardiogenic shock. However, the most recent trends and impact of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during the index hospitalization on in-hospital outcomes are unknown. Methods The National Inpatient Sample was queried from October 2015 to 2019 for hospitalizations with STEMI. The impact of multivessel PCI on in-hospital outcomes of patients with and without cardiogenic shock was evaluated. Results Of 624,605 STEMI hospitalizations treated with PCI, 12.5% were complicated by cardiogenic shock. Among hospitalizations without cardiogenic shock, 15.7% were treated by multivessel PCI, which declined from 20.8% in 2015 to 13.9% in 2019 (Ptrend < 0.001). Multivessel and culprit-only PCI had similar rates of In-hospital mortality (2.4 vs. 2.3%, p = 0.027) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; 7.4 vs. 7.2%, p = 0.072). Among hospitalizations with cardiogenic shock, 22.1% were treated by multivessel PCI, which declined from 29.2% in 2015 to 19.4% in 2019 (Ptrend < 0.001). Multivessel PCI was associated with higher rates of in-hospital mortality (30.9 vs. 28.4%, p < 0.001) and MACCE (39.9 vs. 36.5%, p < 0.001) than culprit-only PCI. Conclusion The frequency of multivessel PCI for STEMI with and without cardiogenic shock is declining. Multivessel PCI is associated with worse in-hospital outcomes for STEMI with cardiogenic shock but not for STEMI without cardiogenic shock.
Project description:BackgroundIn selected patients with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by Cardiogenic shock (CS), mechanical circulatory support with Impella may be beneficial, although conclusive evidence is still lacking. Nevertheless, it has been suggested that Impella initiation prior to primary PCI might improve survival.ObjectiveTo investigate the effect pre-PCI versus immediate post-PCI Impella initiation on short term mortality.MethodsA prospective, single center, observational study, was performed including all patients with STEMI complicated by CS, treated with primary PCI and Impella. Thirty day mortality was compared between patients with Impella initiation pre-PCI and immediately post-PCI.ResultsA total of 88 patients were included. In the pre-PCI group (n = 21), admission heart rate was lower (84 versus 94 bpm, p = 0.04) and no IABP was implanted before Impella initiation, versus 17.9% in post-PCI group (n = 67), p = 0.04. Total 30-day all-cause mortality was 58%, and was lower in pre-PCI group, 47.6% versus 61.2% in the post-PCI group, however not statistically significant (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.3-1.3, p = 0.21). Thirty-day cardiac mortality was significantly lower in the pre-PCI group, 19% versus 44.7% in the post-PCI group (HR 0.3, 95% CI 0.09-0.96, p = 0.042).ConclusionPre-PCI Impella initiation in AMICS patients was not associated with a statistically significant difference in 30-day all-cause mortality, compared to post-PCI Impella initiation.
Project description:Background Despite the benefit of culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the CULPRIT-SHOCK (Culprit Lesion Only PCI Versus Multi-vessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock) trial, the optimal revascularization strategy for refractory cardiogenic shock (CS) requiring mechanical circulatory support devices remains controversial. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between the culprit-only and immediate multivessel PCI strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by CS who underwent venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation before revascularization. Methods and Results This study included patient-pooled data from the RESCUE (Retrospective and Prospective Observational Study to Investigate Clinical Outcomes and Efficacy of Left Ventricular Assist Devices for Korean Patients With Cardiogenic Shock) and SMC-ECMO (Samsung Medical Center-Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation) registries. A total of 315 patients with acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease who underwent venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation before revascularization attributable to refractory CS were included in this analysis. The study population was classified into culprit-only versus immediate multivessel PCI according to nonculprit lesion treatment strategies. The primary end point was 30-day mortality or renal-replacement therapy, and the key secondary end point was 12-month follow-up mortality. Among the study population, 175 (55.6%) underwent culprit-only PCI and 140 (44.4%) underwent immediate multivessel PCI. Compared with culprit-only PCI, immediate multivessel PCI was associated with significantly lower risks of 30-day mortality or renal-replacement therapy (68.0% versus 54.3%; P=0.018) and all-cause mortality during 12 months of follow-up (59.5% versus 47.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.689 [95% CI, 0.506-0.939]; P=0.018) in patients with acute myocardial infarction and CS who underwent venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation before revascularization. These results were also consistent in the 99 pairs of propensity score-matched population (60.6% versus 43.6%; HR, 0.622 [95% CI, 0.420-0.922]; P=0.018). Conclusions Among patients with acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease complicated by advanced CS requiring venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation before revascularization, immediate multivessel PCI was associated with lower incidences of 30-day mortality or renal replacement therapy and 12-month follow-up mortality, compared with culprit-only PCI. Registration Information clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02985008.
Project description:BackgroundThe optimal revascularization strategy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicating by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains controversial. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) compared to culprit vessel-only PCI (CO-PCI) for the treatment, only in patients with STEMI with CS.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted. Studies assessed the efficacy outcomes of short (in-hospital or 30 days)/long-term mortality, cardiac death, myocardial reinfarction, repeat revascularization, and safety outcomes of stroke, bleeding, acute renal failure with MV-PCI vs. CO-PCI in patients with STEMI with CS were included. The publication bias and sensitivity analysis were also performed.ResultsA total of 15 studies were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in short- and long-term mortality in patients treated with MV-PCI compared to CO-PCI group [odds ratio (OR) = 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.92-1.48; OR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58-1.28]. Similarly, there were no significant differences in cardiac death (OR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.44-1.00), myocardial reinfarction (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.77-2.00), repeat revascularization (OR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.40-1.42), bleeding (OR = 1.53; 95% CI, 0.53-4.43), or stroke (OR = 1.42; 95% CI, 0.90-2.23) between the two groups. There was a higher risk in acute renal failure (OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) in patients treated with MV-PCI when compared with CO-PCI.ConclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that there may be no significant benefit for patients with STEMI complicating CS treated with MV-PCI compared with CO-PCI, and patients are at increased risk of developing acute renal failure after MV-PCI intervention.
Project description:ImportanceMyocardial infarction with a culprit lesion located in the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery compared with other coronary segments is associated with more myocardium at risk and worse clinical outcomes.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of culprit lesion location with outcomes of culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention with optional staged revascularization vs immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease, myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock.Design, setting, and participantsPost hoc analysis of the Culprit Lesion Only Coronary Intervention vs Multivessel Coronary Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock (CULPRIT-SHOCK), an investigator-initiated randomized, open-label clinical trial. Patients with multivessel disease, acute myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock were enrolled at 83 European centers from April 2013 through April 2017.InterventionsPatients were randomized to culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention with optional staged revascularization or immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (1:1). For this analysis, patients were stratified by culprit lesion location in the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery group and other-culprit-lesion location group.Main outcomes and measuresEnd points included a composite of death or kidney replacement therapy at 30 days and death at 1 year.ResultsThe median age of the study population was 70 (interquartile range, 60-78 years) and 524 of the study participants were men (76.4%). Of the 685 patients, 33.4% constituted the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery group and 66.6% the other-culprit-lesion location group. The left main or proximal left anterior descending artery group had worse outcomes compared with the other-culprit-lesion location group (56.8% vs 47.5%; P = .02 for the composite end point at 30 days and 59.8% vs 50.1%; P = .02 for death at 1 year). In both groups, culprit-lesion-only vs immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a reduced risk of the composite end point at 30 days (49.1% vs 64.3% and 44.1% vs 50.9%; P for interaction = .27). At 1 year, culprit-lesion-only vs immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a significantly reduced risk of death in the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery but not the other-culprit-lesion location group (50.0% vs 69.6%; P = .003 and 49.8% vs 50.4%; P = .89; P for interaction = 0.02).Conclusions and relevanceIn patients with multivessel disease with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock, a culprit lesion located in the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery vs other coronary segments was associated with worse outcomes. These patients may especially benefit from culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention with optional staged revascularization, although further investigation is needed to confirm this finding.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01927549.
Project description:AimsThe aim of this study was to determine the prognostic impact of pre- and post-PCI TIMI flow grade and TIMI myocardial perfusion grade (TMPG) in a well-defined group of patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction.Methods and resultsPatients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock randomised into the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial were included in the angiographic predictor analysis whenever their TIMI flow grade or TMPG was available in the core lab database (96.9% of cases). A multivariable logistic regression analysis, adjusted on non-angiographic covariates, was performed to investigate whether TIMI flow grade or TMPG was independently associated with all-cause mortality or renal replacement therapy up to one year. Pre-PCI TIMI flow grade and TMPG did not impact on mortality. When analysed in separate multivariable models, post-PCI TIMI 3 flow and TMPG grade 3 were both significantly associated with reduced risk of 30-day mortality: aOR 0.61 (95% CI: 0.38-0.97, p=0.037) and 0.46 (95% CI: 0.29-0.72, p<0.001), respectively. When considered in the same multivariable model, only TMPG was significantly associated with 30-day mortality (aOR 0.38 [0.20-0.71], p=0.002), the 30-day composite of all-cause mortality and renal replacement therapy (aOR 0.34 [0.18-0.66], p=0.001) and mortality at one-year follow-up (aOR 0.46 [0.24-0.88], p=0.02).ConclusionsPost-PCI TIMI flow grade and TMPG are associated with mortality after PCI. TMPG is a better discriminator, supporting microcirculation rather than epicardial reperfusion for prognosis estimation.
Project description:The aim of the study was a comparison of culprit-lesion-only (CL-PCI) with the multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) in terms of 30-day and 12-month mortality in a national registry. Patients from the PL-ACS registry with MI and CS were analyzed. Patients meeting the criteria of the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial were divided into two groups: CL-PCI and MV-PCI groups. Of the 3265 patients in the PL-ACS registry with MI complicated by CS, the criteria of the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial were met by 2084 patients (63.8%). The CL-PCI was performed in 883 patients, and MV-PCI was performed in 1045 patients. After the propensity score matching analysis, 617 well-matched pairs were obtained. In a 30-day follow-up, death from any cause occurred in 49.3% in the CL-PCI group and 57.0% in the MV-PCI group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58-0.92, p = 0.0081). After 12 months, the rate of mortality was 62.5% in the CL-PCI group and 68.0% in the MV-PCI group (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84-1.01, p = 0.066). The results confirm the validity of CULPRIT-SHOCK findings in a national registry and current guideline-recommended strategy of revascularization limited to the infarct-related artery.
Project description:AimsThis study aimed to assess, in patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to unprotected left main coronary artery-related myocardial infarction (ULMCA-related AMICS), the incidence and predictors of no recovery of left ventricular function during the admission.Methods and resultsThis was an observational study conducted at two tertiary care centres (2012-20). The main outcome measured was death or requirement for heart transplantation (HT) or left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) during the admission. A total of 70 patients were included. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was successful in 53/70 patients (75.7%). The combined endpoint of death or requirement of HT or LVAD during the admission occurred in 41/70 patients (58.6%). The highest incidence of the primary endpoint was observed among patients with profound shock and occluded left main coronary artery (LMCA) (20/23, 87%, P < 0.001). Although a successful PCI reduced the incidence of the event in the whole cohort (51.9% vs. 82.4% in failed PCI, P = 0.026), this association was not observed among this last group of complex patients (86.7% vs. 87.5% in failed PCI, P = 0.731). The predictive model included left ventricular ejection fraction, baseline ULMCA Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow, and severity of shock and showed an optimal ability for predicting death or requirements for HT or LVAD during the admission (area under the curve 0.865, P < 0.001).ConclusionsULMCA-related AMICS was associated with a high in-hospital mortality or need for HT or LVAD. Prognosis was especially poor among patients with profound shock and baseline occluded LMCA, with a low probability of recovery regardless of successful PCI.