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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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