Faculty Bibliography

As of April 2007 the early open artery hypothesis is alive and well, but the late open artery hypothesis is adrift. For the foreseeable future, stable patients with persistent occlusion of the infarct artery late after myocardial infarction, and without severe ischaemia or uncontrollable angina, should be managed initially with optimal medical treatment alone, and not with percutaneous coronary intervention. Efforts should focus on establishing reperfusion earlier, including reducing the time to patient presentation

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medications (EBM) are underused in older patients despite potentially larger absolute benefits. Little is known about factors influencing prescribing in the elderly with acute coronary syndromes. METHODS: Among the 15,904 patients from the Sibrafiban vs aspirin to Yield Maximum Protection from ischemic Heart events postacute cOroNary sYndromes (SYMPHONY) and second SYMPHONY trials, we examined the rates of use of EBM according to age (< 75 or > or = 75 years, and 3 subgroups of 5 year increments among patients > or = 75 years). RESULTS: Ninety-day mortality increased with age (< 75 years, 1.3%; > or = 75 to < 80 years, 4.4%; > or = 80 to < 85 years, 6.0%; > or = 85 years, 9.6%). Compared with subjects < 75 years (n = 14,043), acute EBM use was lower among patients > or = 75 years (n = 1794): aspirin (83% vs 85%), heparin (73% vs 78%), and beta-blockers (70% vs 76%). Similarly, discharge use of beta-blockers (69% vs 76%) and statins (28% vs 40%) was lower, although this was not the case for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (44% vs 41%). These patterns persisted among eligible patients. Beyond the age of 75 years, EBM use was not further influenced by age except for statins and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, which were used less frequently in those > or = 85 years. Among patients aged > or = 75 years, prediction for use of each EBM in multivariable modeling was modest (C indices, approximately 0.7); except for statins, increasing age did not predict lower EBM use. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher mortality risk, EBM use was lower among older patients even considering eligibility. Among those aged > or = 75 years, age was no longer the major factor predicting EBM use. The modest C indices suggest other factors are associated with prescribing, underscoring the need for treatment algorithms and quality assurance measures in older patients

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular diastolic abnormalities are associated with adverse outcome in myocardial infarction. Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support is associated with improved diastolic filling. In the SHOCK trial and registry, average left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was approximately 30%, higher than expected based on the classic paradigm. We hypothesized that restrictive physiology plays a role in cardiogenic shock (CS). METHODS: Echocardiograms obtained during the SHOCK trial within 24 hours of randomization were centrally interpreted. Patients with quantifiable mitral E-wave deceleration time were included (n = 64). The restrictive filling pattern was defined as deceleration time < 140 milliseconds. RESULTS: The restrictive pattern was seen in 60.9% of patients studied. Patients with this pattern had lower LVEF (31.1% vs 39.0%, P = .02) and higher wall motion score index (2.1 vs 1.8, P = .05). Patients with restriction were more likely to have IABP support during echocardiography (73.7% vs 43.5%, P = .03). There was no difference with and without restriction in demographic and hemodynamic variables or in mitral regurgitation degree or extent of coronary disease. The restrictive pattern had positive predictive value of 80% for pulmonary capillary wedge pressure > or = 20 mm Hg. Thirty-day survival was 53.9% with restriction versus 68.0% without restriction, P = .31. There was no difference in New York Heart Association class at 1 year between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The restrictive filling pattern is common in patients with CS, which may suggest that diastolic dysfunction contributes to CS pathogenesis. Patients with the restrictive pattern had lower LVEF despite IABP support. An association between the restrictive pattern and mortality was not demonstrated; power was limited by sample size

AIMS: To determine clinical correlates and optimal treatment strategy in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) on admission. METHODS AND RESULTS: In SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries in cardiogenic shocK? (SHOCK) trial and registry patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction (n=1053), CS on admission occurred in 26% of directly admitted patients (n=166/627). Time from myocardial infarction to CS was shorter, initial haemodynamic profile poorer, and aggressive treatment less frequent in CS on admission than in delayed CS patients. CS on admission patients constituted a smaller relative proportion (11%) of the transferred (n=48/426) when compared with the directly admitted cohort (P<0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher (75 vs. 56%; P<0.001) with more rapid death (24-h mortality 40 vs. 17%; P<0.001) in CS on admission than in delayed CS patients. Emergency revascularization reduced in-hospital mortality in CS on admission (60 vs. 82%; P=0.001) and in delayed CS patients similarly (46 vs. 62%; P<0.001; interaction P=0.25). After adjustment for clinical differences, CS on admission was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (P=0.008). CONCLUSION: CS on admission patients have a worse outcome but benefit equally from emergency revascularization as delayed CS patients, emphasizing the need for rapid and direct access of CS on admission patients to facilities providing this care

CONTEXT: Cardiogenic shock remains the major cause of death for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (MI). Although survival in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute MI has been shown to be significantly higher at 1 year in those receiving early revascularization vs initial medical stabilization, data demonstrating long-term survival are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To determine if early revascularization affects long-term survival of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute MI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: The Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial, an international randomized clinical trial enrolling 302 patients from April 1993 through November 1998 with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (mean [SD] age at randomization, 66 [11] years); long-term follow-up of vital status, conducted annually until 2005, ranged from 1 to 11 years (median for survivors, 6 years). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause mortality during long-term follow-up. RESULTS: The group difference in survival of 13 absolute percentage points at 1 year favoring those assigned to early revascularization remained stable at 3 and 6 years (13.1% and 13.2%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.97; log-rank P = .03). At 6 years, overall survival rates were 32.8% and 19.6% in the early revascularization and initial medical stabilization groups, respectively. Among the 143 hospital survivors, a group difference in survival also was observed (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.95; P = .03). The 6-year survival rates for the hospital survivors were 62.4% vs 44.4% for the early revascularization and initial medical stabilization groups, respectively, with annualized death rates of 8.3% vs 14.3% and, for the 1-year survivors, 8.0% vs 10.7%. There was no significant interaction between any subgroup and treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, almost two thirds of hospital survivors with cardiogenic shock who were treated with early revascularization were alive 6 years later. A strategy of early revascularization resulted in a 13.2% absolute and a 67% relative improvement in 6-year survival compared with initial medical stabilization. Early revascularization should be used for patients with acute MI complicated by cardiogenic shock due to left ventricular failure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000552

BACKGROUND: Early revascularization (ERV) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS) reduces mortality rates. Patients admitted to hospitals without revascularization capability have high mortality rates and are not often transferred for ERV. METHODS: Transfer and direct-admit patients with STEMI from the SHOCK Trial and Registry with left ventricular failure (N = 969) were analyzed to determine benefit of ERV in transfer patients. RESULTS: Transfer patients (46%) were younger and less likely to have prior hypertension, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. They received more aggressive treatment, were revascularized later after CS (median 7.3 vs 3.9 hours, P = .0002), and had similar adjusted inhospital mortality compared with direct-admit patients (55% vs 56%). Inhospital mortality was lower in ERV than no/late revascularization (41% vs 53%, P = .017 for transfer patients; 55% vs 71%, P = .0003 for direct-admit patients). Multiple logistic regression showed that inhospital mortality was associated with age (odds ratio [OR] 1.50 per decade increase, 95% CI 1.31-1.73, P < .0001), mean arterial pressure (OR 0.98 per 1 mm Hg increase, 95% CI 0.97-0.99, P < .0001), fibrinolysis before CS (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52-0.96, P = .040), and ERV (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.96, P = .028), but not transfer admission (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.86-1.74, P = .26). CONCLUSIONS: Despite longer time to treatment, transfer patients are a selected population with similar adjusted inhospital mortality and ERV benefit as direct-admit patients. Selected patients with STEMI and CS admitted to hospitals without revascularization capability should be transferred to centers with revascularization capability for immediate angiography