These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Impact of thrombolysis, intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation, and their combination in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK?
    Author: Sanborn TA, Sleeper LA, Bates ER, Jacobs AK, Boland J, French JK, Dens J, Dzavik V, Palmeri ST, Webb JG, Goldberger M, Hochman JS.
    Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol; 2000 Sep; 36(3 Suppl A):1123-9. PubMed ID: 10985715.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: We sought to investigate the potential benefit of thrombolytic therapy (TT) and intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) on in-hospital mortality rates of patients enrolled in a prospective, multi-center Registry of acute myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies suggest that patients suffering from CS due to MI have lower in-hospital mortality rates when IABP support is added to TT. This hypothesis has not heretofore been examined prospectively in a study devoted to CS. METHODS: Of 1,190 patients enrolled at 36 participating centers, 884 patients had CS due to predominant left ventricular (LV) failure. Excluding 26 patients with IABP placed prior to shock onset and 2 patients with incomplete data, 856 patients were evaluated regarding TT and IABP utilization. Treatments, selected by local physicians, fell into four categories: no TT, no IABP (33%; n = 285); IABP only (33%; n = 279); TT only (15%; n = 132); and TT and IABP (19%; n = 160). RESULTS: Patients in CS treated with TT had a lower in-hospital mortality than those who did not receive TT (54% vs. 64%, p = 0.005), and those selected for IABP had a lower in-hospital mortality than those who did not receive IABP (50% vs. 72%, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, there was a significant difference in in-hospital mortality among the four treatment groups: TT + IABP (47%), IABP only (52%), TT only (63%), no TT, no IABP (77%) (p < 0.0001). Patients receiving early IABP (< or = 6 h after thrombolytic therapy, n = 72) had in-hospital mortality similar to those with late IABP (53% vs. 41%, n = 64, respectively, p = 0.172). Revascularization rates differed among the four groups: no TT, no IABP (18%); IABP only (70%); TT only (20%); TT and IABP (68%, p < 0.0001); this influenced in-hospital mortality significantly (39% with revascularization vs. 78% without revascularization, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of patients in cardiogenic shock due to predominant LV failure with TT, IABP and revascularization by PTCA/CABG was associated with lower in-hospital mortality rates than standard medical therapy in this Registry. For hospitals without revascularization capability, a strategy of early TT and IABP followed by immediate transfer for PTCA or CABG may be appropriate. However, selection bias is evident and further investigation is required.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]