Cargando…
Implications of Myocardial Infarction on Management and Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock
BACKGROUND: The randomized DOREMI (Dobutamine Compared to Milrinone) clinical trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of milrinone and dobutamine in patients with cardiogenic shock. Whether the results remain consistent when stratified by acute myocardial infarction remains unknown. In this substudy...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8751815/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34713704 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.021570 |
_version_ | 1784631755180867584 |
---|---|
author | Jung, Richard G. Di Santo, Pietro Mathew, Rebecca Abdel‐Razek, Omar Parlow, Simon Simard, Trevor Marbach, Jeffrey A. Gillmore, Taylor Mao, Brennan Bernick, Jordan Theriault‐Lauzier, Pascal Fu, Angel Lau, Lawrence Motazedian, Pouya Russo, Juan J. Labinaz, Marino Hibbert, Benjamin |
author_facet | Jung, Richard G. Di Santo, Pietro Mathew, Rebecca Abdel‐Razek, Omar Parlow, Simon Simard, Trevor Marbach, Jeffrey A. Gillmore, Taylor Mao, Brennan Bernick, Jordan Theriault‐Lauzier, Pascal Fu, Angel Lau, Lawrence Motazedian, Pouya Russo, Juan J. Labinaz, Marino Hibbert, Benjamin |
author_sort | Jung, Richard G. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The randomized DOREMI (Dobutamine Compared to Milrinone) clinical trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of milrinone and dobutamine in patients with cardiogenic shock. Whether the results remain consistent when stratified by acute myocardial infarction remains unknown. In this substudy, we sought to evaluate differences in clinical management and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) versus non‐AMICS. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients in cardiogenic shock (n=192) were randomized 1:1 to dobutamine or milrinone. The primary composite end point in this subgroup analysis was all‐cause in‐hospital mortality, cardiac arrest, non‐fatal myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, the need for mechanical circulatory support, or initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) at 30‐days. Outcomes were evaluated in patients with (n=65) and without (n=127) AMICS. The primary composite end point was significantly higher in AMICS versus non‐AMICS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.21; 95% CI, 1.47–3.30; P=0.0001). The primary end point was driven by increased rates of all‐cause mortality, mechanical circulatory support, and RRT. No differences in other secondary outcomes including cardiac arrest or cerebrovascular accident were observed. AMICS remained associated with the primary composite outcome, 30‐day mortality, and RRT after adjustment for age, sex, procedural contrast use, multivessel disease, and inotrope type. CONCLUSIONS: AMI was associated with increased rates of adverse clinical outcomes in cardiogenic shock along with increased rates of mortality and initiation of mechanical circulatory support and RRT. Contrast administration during revascularization likely contributes to increased rates of RRT. Heterogeneity of outcomes in AMICS versus non‐AMICS highlights the need to study interventions in specific subgroups of cardiogenic shock. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03207165. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8751815 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87518152022-01-14 Implications of Myocardial Infarction on Management and Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock Jung, Richard G. Di Santo, Pietro Mathew, Rebecca Abdel‐Razek, Omar Parlow, Simon Simard, Trevor Marbach, Jeffrey A. Gillmore, Taylor Mao, Brennan Bernick, Jordan Theriault‐Lauzier, Pascal Fu, Angel Lau, Lawrence Motazedian, Pouya Russo, Juan J. Labinaz, Marino Hibbert, Benjamin J Am Heart Assoc Original Research BACKGROUND: The randomized DOREMI (Dobutamine Compared to Milrinone) clinical trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of milrinone and dobutamine in patients with cardiogenic shock. Whether the results remain consistent when stratified by acute myocardial infarction remains unknown. In this substudy, we sought to evaluate differences in clinical management and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) versus non‐AMICS. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients in cardiogenic shock (n=192) were randomized 1:1 to dobutamine or milrinone. The primary composite end point in this subgroup analysis was all‐cause in‐hospital mortality, cardiac arrest, non‐fatal myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, the need for mechanical circulatory support, or initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) at 30‐days. Outcomes were evaluated in patients with (n=65) and without (n=127) AMICS. The primary composite end point was significantly higher in AMICS versus non‐AMICS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.21; 95% CI, 1.47–3.30; P=0.0001). The primary end point was driven by increased rates of all‐cause mortality, mechanical circulatory support, and RRT. No differences in other secondary outcomes including cardiac arrest or cerebrovascular accident were observed. AMICS remained associated with the primary composite outcome, 30‐day mortality, and RRT after adjustment for age, sex, procedural contrast use, multivessel disease, and inotrope type. CONCLUSIONS: AMI was associated with increased rates of adverse clinical outcomes in cardiogenic shock along with increased rates of mortality and initiation of mechanical circulatory support and RRT. Contrast administration during revascularization likely contributes to increased rates of RRT. Heterogeneity of outcomes in AMICS versus non‐AMICS highlights the need to study interventions in specific subgroups of cardiogenic shock. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03207165. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-10-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8751815/ /pubmed/34713704 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.021570 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Jung, Richard G. Di Santo, Pietro Mathew, Rebecca Abdel‐Razek, Omar Parlow, Simon Simard, Trevor Marbach, Jeffrey A. Gillmore, Taylor Mao, Brennan Bernick, Jordan Theriault‐Lauzier, Pascal Fu, Angel Lau, Lawrence Motazedian, Pouya Russo, Juan J. Labinaz, Marino Hibbert, Benjamin Implications of Myocardial Infarction on Management and Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock |
title | Implications of Myocardial Infarction on Management and Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock |
title_full | Implications of Myocardial Infarction on Management and Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock |
title_fullStr | Implications of Myocardial Infarction on Management and Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock |
title_full_unstemmed | Implications of Myocardial Infarction on Management and Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock |
title_short | Implications of Myocardial Infarction on Management and Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock |
title_sort | implications of myocardial infarction on management and outcome in cardiogenic shock |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8751815/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34713704 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.021570 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jungrichardg implicationsofmyocardialinfarctiononmanagementandoutcomeincardiogenicshock AT disantopietro implicationsofmyocardialinfarctiononmanagementandoutcomeincardiogenicshock AT mathewrebecca implicationsofmyocardialinfarctiononmanagementandoutcomeincardiogenicshock AT abdelrazekomar implicationsofmyocardialinfarctiononmanagementandoutcomeincardiogenicshock AT parlowsimon implicationsofmyocardialinfarctiononmanagementandoutcomeincardiogenicshock AT simardtrevor implicationsofmyocardialinfarctiononmanagementandoutcomeincardiogenicshock AT marbachjeffreya implicationsofmyocardialinfarctiononmanagementandoutcomeincardiogenicshock AT gillmoretaylor implicationsofmyocardialinfarctiononmanagementandoutcomeincardiogenicshock AT maobrennan implicationsofmyocardialinfarctiononmanagementandoutcomeincardiogenicshock AT bernickjordan implicationsofmyocardialinfarctiononmanagementandoutcomeincardiogenicshock AT theriaultlauzierpascal implicationsofmyocardialinfarctiononmanagementandoutcomeincardiogenicshock AT fuangel implicationsofmyocardialinfarctiononmanagementandoutcomeincardiogenicshock AT laulawrence implicationsofmyocardialinfarctiononmanagementandoutcomeincardiogenicshock AT motazedianpouya implicationsofmyocardialinfarctiononmanagementandoutcomeincardiogenicshock AT russojuanj implicationsofmyocardialinfarctiononmanagementandoutcomeincardiogenicshock AT labinazmarino implicationsofmyocardialinfarctiononmanagementandoutcomeincardiogenicshock AT hibbertbenjamin implicationsofmyocardialinfarctiononmanagementandoutcomeincardiogenicshock |