Related Experiment Videos
Cardiogenic shock
1Division of Cardiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Insights
Cardiogenic shock following myocardial infarction has high mortality. Emergency revascularization, specifically percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), is being investigated in ongoing trials to improve outcomes.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
- Critical Care Medicine
Background:
- In-hospital mortality for cardiogenic shock remains high (70-80%) despite medical and mechanical support.
- Thrombolytic therapy benefits in acute myocardial infarction do not extend to cardiogenic shock.
- Emergency revascularization is a potential intervention for improving cardiogenic shock prognosis.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the efficacy of emergency revascularization in patients with cardiogenic shock.
- To determine if percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) improves survival in cardiogenic shock.
- To identify patient subsets most likely to benefit from PTCA.
Main Methods:
- Two ongoing randomized clinical trials: the multicenter international SHOCK trial and the Swiss Multicenter Study of Angioplasty for Shock (SMASH) trial.
- Patients are randomized to PTCA or conservative treatment.
- Mortality is the primary end point in both trials.
Main Results:
- Controlled data on the efficacy of emergency revascularization in cardiogenic shock is currently lacking.
- Ongoing trials (SHOCK and SMASH) aim to provide definitive evidence.
- Results from these trials are anticipated to clarify the role of PTCA.
Conclusions:
- Emergency revascularization, particularly PTCA, holds promise for improving cardiogenic shock outcomes.
- Further evidence from randomized trials is needed to confirm the benefits of PTCA.
- Identifying specific patient groups who benefit most from PTCA is a key objective.
Abstract:
Despite advancements in the pharmacologic treatment of acute myocardial infarction and the introduction of mechanical hemodynamic support, in-hospital mortality rates for cardiogenic shock have remained between 70% and 80%. In addition, the proven beneficial effects of thrombolytic therapy in reducing mortality in acute myocardial infarction have not been paralleled by similar results in cardiogenic shock. Emergency revascularization appears to be the only intervention that may modify the prognosis of cardiogenic shock. Because the absence of controlled data, however, final conclusions cannot yet be drawn. Two ongoing randomized clinical trials will try to answer the unsolved issues. In the multicenter international SHOCK trial (Should We Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock), patients are being randomized to PTCA or conservative treatment, with mortality as the primary end point. A similar end point will be evaluated in the Swiss Multicenter Study of Angioplasty for Shock following Myocardial Infarction (SMASH) trial. It is hoped that these two randomized trials will be able to prove the value of PTCA in cardiogenic shock and identify the subset of patients most likely to benefit from such treatment.