| Citation: |
This Letter to the Editor is one manuscript in the Special Issue of “Management of cardiogenic shock”. Guest editor: Prof. Albert Ariza-Solé (Bellvitge University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain). Please cite this article as: Galván-Román F, Puerto E, Martín-Asenjo R, Ariza-Solé A. Cardiogenic shock due to left main related myocardial infarction: is revascularization enough? J Geriatr Cardiol 2022; 19(2): 152−157. DOI: 10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2022.02.005.
|
The incidence of cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) remains between 3% and 10% and in-hospital mortality is hardly less than 30%.[1–3] In addition, the economic cost of caring for these patients is high.[4] Revascularization in the acute phase is the only measure that has demonstrated to modify the prognosis of AMI-CS.[5] However, data about the real prognostic impact of revascularization when the culprit lesion is the unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) are scarce. The progressive development of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is promising in this scenario. In the context of AMI-CS, an initial bridge-to-recovery strategy is used in most cases due to the belief in the reversibility of the process.[6] However, in ULMCA-related AMI-CS, recovery could be much less frequent.
Hereinafter, we present an article on the current literature analyzing the rate of short-term mortality of ULMCA-related AMI-CS, the use of MCS, and the prognostic impact of coronary revascularization in this scenario in terms of survival free from heart transplantation (HT) and permanent ventricular assist devices (PVAD).
Articles published between 1st January 2000 and 31st December 2020 were included. The bibliographic search was carried out in PubMed and Embase databases. The search terms were myocardial infarction, CS, and left main coronary artery. Articles with pediatric population, patients recruited before 2000, case reports (less than five cases) and conference abstracts were not included. A total of 22 final articles were analyzed. The flow chart of the articles included in the review is shown in Figure 1. Characteristics of the review cohort are summarized in Table 1.
| References | Basal characteristics | LMCA PCI | LMCA SR | Outcomes |
| Josiassen J, et al.[7] | n = 194, mean age: 69 yrs, male (73%), right coronary dominance (74%), multivessel intervention (44%), initial TIMI 0 flow (30%), IABP (20%), Impella (30%), VA-ECMO (10%), OHCA (22%) | 92% | 78% | 24-hour mortality: 39% 30-day mortality: 66% |
| Kim HS, et al.[8] | n = 15 | NA | NA | 100-day mortality: 73.3% |
| Homorodean C, et al.[9] | n = 40, initial TIMI 2/3 (67.5%), initial TIMI 0/1 and collaterals (12.5%)/no collaterals (20%) | 100% | NA | 30-day mortality: 60% Initial TIMI 0/1: 84.6% vs. TIMI 2/3: 44% Initial TIMI 0/1 and no collaterals: 100% vs. TIMI 0/1 and collaterals: 60% |
| Higami H, et al.[10] | n = 115, mean age: 70 yrs, male (77%), femoral approach (75%), LMCA only (20%), initial TIMI ≤ 1 flow (22%), IABP (85%), VA-ECMO (26%) | 99% | NA No-reflow/slow flow during PCI (26%) | 30-day mortality: 36.6% 180-day mortality: 49.5% |
| Édes IF, et al.[11] | n = 20, CPR (55%), IABP (35%), VA-ECMO (15%) | 100% | NA Final TIMI 3 flow in LAD and LCX (70%) | In-hospital mortality: 60% CPR: 91% vs. no-CPR: 22% |
| Meraj PM, et al.[12] | n = 36, mean age: 70 yrs, male (77.8%), initial TIMI flow ≤ 1 (35%), cardiac arrest (44.4%), MV (72.2%), Impella 2.5® pre-PCI (55.6%), Impella 2.5® post-PCI (44.4%) | 100% | NA TIMI flow 0 or 1 post-PCI (1.49%) | In-hospital mortality: 61% Impella 2.5® pre-PCI: 45% vs. Impella 2.5® post-PCI: 81.25% (P = 0.041) |
| Fuernau G, et al.[13] | n = 76, mean age: 69 yrs, male (87%), initial TIMI flow 0 (39%), IABP (53%), MV at admission (47%), CPR prior to admission (41%) | 92% | 87% | 30-day mortality: 49% 1-year mortality: 60% |
| Kawaji T, et al.[14] | n = 62 | 100% | NA | 30-day mortality: 54.8% 1-year mortality: 62.9% |
| Almudarra SS, et al.[15] | n = 545 including STEMI (n = 323) and NSTEACS (n = 222) | 100% | NA | 30-day mortality (STEMI and CS): 52% 1-year mortality (STEMI and CS): 61.1% No data of mortality in NSTEACS and CS |
| Kim U, et al.[16] | n = 42, mean age: 66 yrs, male (83.3%), IABP (69%) | 85.7% | NA | In-hospital mortality: 47.6% 1-year mortality: 50% |
| Parma A, et al.[17] | n = 30, IABP (100%) | 100% | NA | 30-day mortality: 63.3% |
| Hussain F, et al.[18] | n = 8, mean age: 62 yrs, male (75%), right coronary dominance (100%), complete revascularization (50%), thrombolysis pre-PCI (63%), MV (63%), CPR (50%), IABP (88%), VA-ECMO (25%), Impella 5.0® (12.5%) | 100% | 100% | In-hospital mortality: 38% |
| Pappalardo A, et al.[19] | n = 22, MV (45%), IABP (100%) | NA | NA | In-hospital mortality: 32% |
| Barone-Rochette G, et al.[20] | n = 17, mean age: 64 yrs, male (76%), right coronary dominance (82%), thrombolysis pre-PCI (29%), MV (41%), IABP (70%), VA-ECMO (41%) | 100% | 94% | In-hospital mortality: 29% |
| Pedrazzini GB, et al.[21] | n = 42 | 100% | NA | In-hospital mortality: 54.8% |
| Pepe M, et al.[22] | n = 13 | 100% | NA | In-hospital mortality: NA 30-day MACE (death, MI, TLR, TVR, ST, restenosis): 30.8% |
| Garcia-Alvarez A, et al.[23] | n = 12 | NA | 7% in UHT 22% in non-UHT | In-hospital mortality: 75% UHT: 25% |
| Jensen LO, et al.[24] | n = 29 | NA | NA | 30-day mortality: 51.7% 18-months mortality: 55.2% |
| Prasad SB, et al.[25] | n = 18 | 100% | NA | In-hospital mortality: 50% |
| Tan CH, et al.[26] | n = 11, mean age: 61 yrs, male (73%), multivessel disease (63%), IABP (100%) | 100% | 100% | In-hospital mortality: 63% |
| Barlis P, et al.[27] | n = 5, median age: 70 yrs, male (80%), initial TIMI flow 0−2 (60%) | 100% | 100% | In-hospital mortality: 60% |
| Bonello L, et al.[28] | n = 5, GpIIb/IIIa receptor antagonists (100%) | 100% | NA | In-hospital mortality: 40% |
| CPR: cardiopulmonary resuscitation; CS: cardiogenic shock; IABP: intra-aortic balloon pump; LAD: left anterior descending; LCX: left circumflex; LMCA: left main coronary artery; MACE: major adverse cardiovascular events; MI: myocardial infarction; MV: mechanical ventilation; NA: non-applicable; NSTEACS: non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome; OHCA: out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; SR: successful revascularization; ST: stent thrombosis; STEMI: ST-elevation myocardial infarction; TIMI: thrombolysis in myocardial infarction; TLR: target lesion revascularization; TVR: target vessel revascularization; UHT: urgent heart transplantation; VA-ECMO: venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. | ||||
DownLoad:
CSV
Only one of the studies specifically focused on patients with ULMCA-related AMI-CS as the main population (n = 17),[20] whereas the remainder provided information from a larger study population with a specific analysis for the ULMCA-related AMI-CS subgroup. All but one of the studies[13] were observational and most of them were retrospective and contained a small number of patients (range: 5–545). High variability was observed in the incidence and prognosis of ULMCA-related AMI-CS, probably due to the heterogeneous definitions of ULMCA culprit lesion and CS. A significant variability in the definition of culprit left main coronary artery was found, differing from stenosis more than 50%–70% to total occlusion and the term unprotected was specified only in eight studies.[9–12,15,17,19,22] A definition of CS was not systematically explained. Sustained systolic blood pressure value below 90 mmHg was the most widespread criteria for its definition and the need of vasoactive drugs or MCS was necessary to accomplish with the diagnosis in nine articles.[7,8,12,13,15,18,22,23,27] Successful revascularization (SR) was defined only in seven studies as final thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade ≥ 2 after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and residual angiographic stenosis less than 20%–30%.[9,11,17,19,25,27,28] Successful reperfusion was reported only in some of the studies included, ranging from 74% to 100%.[7,13,18,23,26,27]
Data regarding the association between SR and outcomes were available in a minority of studies. In one study (n = 40), both a higher residual syntax score and a lower SYNTAX score revascularization index, which represents the proportion of coronary artery disease burden treated by PCI, were associated to higher mortality.[9] In another study (n = 74), one-year mortality or need for urgent HT for patients with postprocedural TIMI grade 3, 2, and 1 or 0 flows were 38%, 92%, and 90%, respectively (P < 0.001). The adjusted analysis revealed that left main coronary artery occlusion (HR = 3.75, 95% CI: 1.09−12.84) and postprocedural TIMI < 3 grade flow (HR = 3.37, 95% CI: 1.48−7.72), both were associated with poorer outcomes. However, those data were not only referred to patients with ULMCA as a culprit lesion.[23]
The use of short-term MCS other than intra-aortic balloon pump such as Impella or venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, was described in 10 of the 22 studies analyzed, including a total of 160 patients.[7,8,10–12,14,18,20,22,23] Mortality in patients undergoing mechanical support devices (MSD) was not systematically reported. A 50% of mortality was described in one study[18] and was not even addressed in MSD recipients in the rest of the articles.
The timing of MSD implantation was not properly specified in most studies. However, in a study including 36 patients,[12] the strategies of support with Impella 2.5® before versus after PCI were compared. The authors described better survival to discharge in the pre-PCI group (55.0% vs. 18.8%, P = 0.041), but a higher proportion of non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the pre-PCI group was found.
CS is a severe clinical condition which is commonly associated to multiorgan failure and an unacceptably high rate of mortality despite current advances in management of critically ill patients.[29,30] PCI is the only measure that has shown to reduce mortality in AMI-CS. In addition, MSD are promising tools that can contribute to support the failing heart during and after revascularization, allowing the recovery process to complete.
Most studies included in this article had a small sample size, assessed different profiles of patients and had significant methodological limitations such as the fact of being observational, with different definitions of ULMCA culprit lesion and without data regarding successful reperfusion in a significant proportion of cases. Therefore, it is difficult to draw solid conclusions in this complex clinical setting, beyond the fact that patients have a significant mortality despite performing PCI. In studies where SR was achieved in 100%,[26,27] in-hospital mortality was around 60%, highlighting the possibility of an adverse prognosis regardless SR. Therefore, specifically designed, adequately powered studies are needed to properly answer this important question in ULMCA-related AMI-CS.
As stated before, MSD have emerged as essential tools for the rescue of critical patients with refractory CS. Specifically, in ULMCA-related AMI-CS, MSD may be useful during and after revascularization either for allowing the recovery process to complete or as a bridge to advanced therapies such as HT or PVAD. The description of a significant benefit of PCI in refractory ULMCA-related AMI-CS is a clinically relevant question, because the duration of support in patients on MCS is closely related to the rate of complications. The description of a lack of significant benefit of PCI in this complex clinical setting should lead to earlier initiation of HT or PVAD candidacy studies to optimize time intervals and clinical outcomes.
However, evidence about the potential benefit of MCS in this setting is scarce. The real benefit of MCS in addition to revascularization of the culprit lesion in AMI-CS has yet to be demonstrated in randomized clinical trials.[31,32] There is even less information in ULMCA-related AMI-CS, with a limited number of studies with small sample size, most of them are observational and show conflicting results.
The timing of MCS is also a matter of debate. While some authors suggest that MCS should be used after PCI in the ULMCA lesion,[11] others have described better outcomes of the “before-PCI” strategy.[12] Once again, due to the limitations of these studies, this question remains unanswered.
On the other hand, independent factors for mortality have not been directly evaluated for patients with ULMCA-related AMI-CS. The results of the studies with higher mortality[7–9,11,17,23,26,27] suggest that the initial TIMI 0 flow, cardiorespiratory arrest, and the absence of collaterals may be predictors for mortality in this setting. For instance, in the only study focused on ULMCA-related AMI-CS,[9] in-hospital mortality was significantly higher when initial TIMI was 0−1 (84% vs. 44%) and was especially high in cases with TIMI 0−1 and absence of collaterals (100%). Other authors have described a better prognosis in patients with shorter median symptom-to-revascularization time.[14]
Finally, one of the main issues when interpreting the results of studies in CS is the significant heterogeneity regarding the severity of shock. In this sense, no graduation of shock through validated scales such as INTERMACS[33] or SCAI[34] was detailed in any of the studies included in the review. This could lead to articles with non-strict criteria for the definition of CS to include patients who do not have a real compromise of organ perfusion. Therefore, the short-term risk of adverse events could be underestimated.[20] On the contrary, some studies with strict definitions recruited patients with established multiorgan failure that inevitably were related to worse outcomes.[7,8,17,23,27] An accurate determination of shock severity is crucial to be addressed in future studies to compare different populations and properly interpret the results of trials and registries of AMI-CS.
To summarize, patients suffering from ULMCA-related AMI-CS have a high short-term mortality (30%−75%). Studies on this topic are scarce and have significant limitations in most cases, such as their small sample size, their observational and retrospective nature, the heterogeneity of the included patients, the lack of information about SR and the severity of shock. The available data do not allow to adequately demonstrate the prognostic impact of SR of the ULMCA nor that of MSD. Larger and specifically designed studies are needed to fully address this clinically relevant question.
All authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
| [1] |
De Luca L, Olivari Z, Farina A, et al. Temporal trends in the epidemiology, management, and outcome of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute coronary syndromes. Eur J Heart Fail 2015; 17: 1124−1132. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.339
|
| [2] |
Kolte D, Khera S, Aronow WS, et al. Trends in incidence, management, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock complicating ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the United States. J Am Heart Assoc 2014; 3: e000590. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.113.000590
|
| [3] |
Goldberg RJ, Makam RC, Yarzebski J, et al. Decade-long trends (2001–2011) in the incidence and hospital death rates associated with the in-hospital development of cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2016; 9: 117−125. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.002359
|
| [4] |
Collado E, Luiso D, Ariza-Solé A, et al. Hospitalization-related economic impact of patients with cardiogenic shock in a high-complexity reference centre. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2021; 10: 50−53. doi: 10.1093/ehjacc/zuaa003
|
| [5] |
Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should we emergently revascularize occluded coronaries for cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 625−634. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199908263410901
|
| [6] |
Sandoval E, de la Sotab EP, Burgos V, et al. [ESPAMACS registry. Biannual report 2017–2018]. Cir Cardiovasc 2019; 26: 217−222. [In Spanish].
|
| [7] |
Josiassen J, Helgestad OKL, Møller JE, et al. Prognostic importance of culprit lesion location in cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2020; 18: 2048872620911848. doi: 10.1177/2048872620911848
|
| [8] |
Kim HS, Park KH, Ha SO, et al. Predictors of survival following veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with acute myocardial infarction-related refractory cardiogenic shock: clinical and coronary angiographic factors. J Thorac Dis 2020; 12: 2507−2516. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2020.03.51
|
| [9] |
Homorodean C, Iancu AC, Leucuţa D, et al. New predictors of early and late outcomes after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and unprotected left main coronary artery culprit lesion. J Interv Cardiol 2019; 2019: 8238972. doi: 10.1155/2019/8238972
|
| [10] |
Higami H, Toyofuku M, Morimoto T, et al. Acute coronary syndrome with unprotected left main coronary artery culprit: an observation from the AOI-LMCA registry. Circ J 2018; 83: 198−208. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-18-0896
|
| [11] |
Édes IF, Ruzsa Z, Lux Á, et al. Acute, total occlusion of the left main stem: coronary intervention options, outcomes, and recommendations. Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej 2018; 14: 233−239. doi: 10.5114/aic.2018.78325
|
| [12] |
Meraj PM, Doshi R, Schreiber T, et al. Impella 2.5 initiated prior to unprotected left main PCI in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock improves early survival. J Interv Cardiol 2017; 30: 256−263. doi: 10.1111/joic.12377
|
| [13] |
Fuernau G, Fengler K, Desch S, et al. Culprit lesion location and outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II-trial. Clin Res Cardiol 2016; 105: 1030−1041. doi: 10.1007/s00392-016-1017-6
|
| [14] |
Kawaji T, Shiomi H, Morimoto T, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock due to acute pump failure. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2018; 7: 743−754. doi: 10.1177/2048872616673535
|
| [15] |
Almudarra SS, Gale CP, Baxter PD, et al. Comparative outcomes after unprotected left main stem percutaneous coronary intervention: a national linked cohort study of 5, 065 acute and elective cases from the BCIS Registry (British Cardiovascular Intervention Society). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7: 717−730. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2014.03.005
|
| [16] |
Kim U, Park JS, Kang SW, et al. Outcomes according to presentation with versus without cardiogenic shock in patients with left main coronary artery stenosis and acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 2012; 110: 36−39. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.02.044
|
| [17] |
Parma A, Fiorilli R, DE Felice F, et al. Early and mid-term clinical outcome of emergency PCI in patients with STEMI due to unprotected left main coronary artery disease. J Interv Cardiol 2012; 25: 215−222. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8183.2011.00712.x
|
| [18] |
Hussain F, Nguyen T, Elmayergi N, et al. The acutely occluded left main coronary artery culprit in cardiogenic shock and initial percutaneous coronary intervention: a substudy of the Manitoba “no option” left main PCI registry. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 2012; 90: 1325−1331. doi: 10.1139/y2012-111
|
| [19] |
Pappalardo A, Mamas MA, Imola F, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of unprotected left main coronary artery disease as culprit lesion in patients with acute myocardial infarction. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 4: 618−626. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2011.02.016
|
| [20] |
Barone-Rochette G, Vanzetto G, Fluttaz A, et al. Cardiogenic shock due to unprotected left main coronary artery thrombosis in the era of mechanical circulatory support. Int J Cardiol 2011; 148: 394−396. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2010.12.109
|
| [21] |
Pedrazzini GB, Radovanovic D, Vassalli G, et al. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main disease in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction the AMIS (Acute Myocardial Infarction in Switzerland) plus registry experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 4: 627−633. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2011.04.004
|
| [22] |
Pepe M, Napodano M, Tarantini G, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main disease in very high risk patients: safety of drug-eluting stents. Heart Vessels 2011; 26: 17−24. doi: 10.1007/s00380-010-0027-y
|
| [23] |
Garcia-Alvarez A, Arzamendi D, Loma-Osorio P, et al. Early risk stratification of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2009; 103: 1073−1077. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.12.033
|
| [24] |
Jensen LO, Kaltoft A, Thayssen P, et al. Outcome in high risk patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2010; 75: 101−108. doi: 10.1002/ccd.22205
|
| [25] |
Prasad SB, Whitbourn R, Malaiapan Y, et al. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction caused by unprotected left main stem thrombosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2009; 73: 301−307. doi: 10.1002/ccd.21886
|
| [26] |
Tan CH, Hong MK, Lee CW, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting of left main coronary artery with drug-eluting stent in the setting of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiol 2008; 126: 224−228. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2007.03.131
|
| [27] |
Barlis P, Horrigan M, Elis S, et al. Treatment of unprotected left main disease with drug-eluting stents in patients at high risk for coronary artery bypass grafting. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2007; 8: 84−89. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2006.11.007
|
| [28] |
Bonello L, Com O, Gil JM, et al. Emergency percutaneous angioplasty of unprotected left main coronary artery in the setting of myocardial infarction: experience of a low volume center without surgical back up. Int J Cardiol 2006; 112: 406−408. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.07.007
|
| [29] |
Berg DD, Bohula EA, van Diepen S, et al. Epidemiology of shock in contemporary cardiac intensive care units. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2019; 12: e005618. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.005618
|
| [30] |
Basir MB, Kapur NK, Patel K, et al. Improved outcomes associated with the use of shock protocols: updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 93: 1173−1183. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28307
|
| [31] |
Thiele H, Freund A, Gimenez MR, et al. Extracorporeal life support in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: design and rationale of the ECLS-SHOCK trial. Am Heart J 2021; 234: 1−11. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2021.01.002
|
| [32] |
Banning AS, Adriaenssens T, Berry C, et al. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with cardiogenic shock: rationale and design of the randomised, multicentre, open-label EURO SHOCK trial. EuroIntervention 2021; 16: e1227−e1236. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-20-01076
|
| [33] |
Stevenson LW, Pagani FD, Young JB, et al. INTERMACS profiles of advanced heart failure: the current picture. J Heart Lung Transplant 2009; 28: 535−541. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2009.02.015
|
| [34] |
Jentzer JC, van Diepen S, Barsness GW, et al. Cardiogenic shock classification to predict mortality in the cardiac intensive care unit. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 74: 2117−2128. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.07.077
|
Figures(1) / Tables(1)
Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co., Ltd. 
| References | Basal characteristics | LMCA PCI | LMCA SR | Outcomes |
| Josiassen J, et al.[7] | n = 194, mean age: 69 yrs, male (73%), right coronary dominance (74%), multivessel intervention (44%), initial TIMI 0 flow (30%), IABP (20%), Impella (30%), VA-ECMO (10%), OHCA (22%) | 92% | 78% | 24-hour mortality: 39% 30-day mortality: 66% |
| Kim HS, et al.[8] | n = 15 | NA | NA | 100-day mortality: 73.3% |
| Homorodean C, et al.[9] | n = 40, initial TIMI 2/3 (67.5%), initial TIMI 0/1 and collaterals (12.5%)/no collaterals (20%) | 100% | NA | 30-day mortality: 60% Initial TIMI 0/1: 84.6% vs. TIMI 2/3: 44% Initial TIMI 0/1 and no collaterals: 100% vs. TIMI 0/1 and collaterals: 60% |
| Higami H, et al.[10] | n = 115, mean age: 70 yrs, male (77%), femoral approach (75%), LMCA only (20%), initial TIMI ≤ 1 flow (22%), IABP (85%), VA-ECMO (26%) | 99% | NA No-reflow/slow flow during PCI (26%) | 30-day mortality: 36.6% 180-day mortality: 49.5% |
| Édes IF, et al.[11] | n = 20, CPR (55%), IABP (35%), VA-ECMO (15%) | 100% | NA Final TIMI 3 flow in LAD and LCX (70%) | In-hospital mortality: 60% CPR: 91% vs. no-CPR: 22% |
| Meraj PM, et al.[12] | n = 36, mean age: 70 yrs, male (77.8%), initial TIMI flow ≤ 1 (35%), cardiac arrest (44.4%), MV (72.2%), Impella 2.5® pre-PCI (55.6%), Impella 2.5® post-PCI (44.4%) | 100% | NA TIMI flow 0 or 1 post-PCI (1.49%) | In-hospital mortality: 61% Impella 2.5® pre-PCI: 45% vs. Impella 2.5® post-PCI: 81.25% (P = 0.041) |
| Fuernau G, et al.[13] | n = 76, mean age: 69 yrs, male (87%), initial TIMI flow 0 (39%), IABP (53%), MV at admission (47%), CPR prior to admission (41%) | 92% | 87% | 30-day mortality: 49% 1-year mortality: 60% |
| Kawaji T, et al.[14] | n = 62 | 100% | NA | 30-day mortality: 54.8% 1-year mortality: 62.9% |
| Almudarra SS, et al.[15] | n = 545 including STEMI (n = 323) and NSTEACS (n = 222) | 100% | NA | 30-day mortality (STEMI and CS): 52% 1-year mortality (STEMI and CS): 61.1% No data of mortality in NSTEACS and CS |
| Kim U, et al.[16] | n = 42, mean age: 66 yrs, male (83.3%), IABP (69%) | 85.7% | NA | In-hospital mortality: 47.6% 1-year mortality: 50% |
| Parma A, et al.[17] | n = 30, IABP (100%) | 100% | NA | 30-day mortality: 63.3% |
| Hussain F, et al.[18] | n = 8, mean age: 62 yrs, male (75%), right coronary dominance (100%), complete revascularization (50%), thrombolysis pre-PCI (63%), MV (63%), CPR (50%), IABP (88%), VA-ECMO (25%), Impella 5.0® (12.5%) | 100% | 100% | In-hospital mortality: 38% |
| Pappalardo A, et al.[19] | n = 22, MV (45%), IABP (100%) | NA | NA | In-hospital mortality: 32% |
| Barone-Rochette G, et al.[20] | n = 17, mean age: 64 yrs, male (76%), right coronary dominance (82%), thrombolysis pre-PCI (29%), MV (41%), IABP (70%), VA-ECMO (41%) | 100% | 94% | In-hospital mortality: 29% |
| Pedrazzini GB, et al.[21] | n = 42 | 100% | NA | In-hospital mortality: 54.8% |
| Pepe M, et al.[22] | n = 13 | 100% | NA | In-hospital mortality: NA 30-day MACE (death, MI, TLR, TVR, ST, restenosis): 30.8% |
| Garcia-Alvarez A, et al.[23] | n = 12 | NA | 7% in UHT 22% in non-UHT | In-hospital mortality: 75% UHT: 25% |
| Jensen LO, et al.[24] | n = 29 | NA | NA | 30-day mortality: 51.7% 18-months mortality: 55.2% |
| Prasad SB, et al.[25] | n = 18 | 100% | NA | In-hospital mortality: 50% |
| Tan CH, et al.[26] | n = 11, mean age: 61 yrs, male (73%), multivessel disease (63%), IABP (100%) | 100% | 100% | In-hospital mortality: 63% |
| Barlis P, et al.[27] | n = 5, median age: 70 yrs, male (80%), initial TIMI flow 0−2 (60%) | 100% | 100% | In-hospital mortality: 60% |
| Bonello L, et al.[28] | n = 5, GpIIb/IIIa receptor antagonists (100%) | 100% | NA | In-hospital mortality: 40% |
| CPR: cardiopulmonary resuscitation; CS: cardiogenic shock; IABP: intra-aortic balloon pump; LAD: left anterior descending; LCX: left circumflex; LMCA: left main coronary artery; MACE: major adverse cardiovascular events; MI: myocardial infarction; MV: mechanical ventilation; NA: non-applicable; NSTEACS: non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome; OHCA: out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; SR: successful revascularization; ST: stent thrombosis; STEMI: ST-elevation myocardial infarction; TIMI: thrombolysis in myocardial infarction; TLR: target lesion revascularization; TVR: target vessel revascularization; UHT: urgent heart transplantation; VA-ECMO: venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. | ||||
DownLoad:
CSV
