Faculty Bibliography

Experimental and clinical studies have suggested that late opening of an infarct-related artery (IRA) after myocardial infarction (MI) could improve clinical outcome. However, the suggestive observational data are limited by selection biases. Indeed, most small randomized studies have not demonstrated benefit. Thus, there is no recommendation for routine late opening of the IRA in current national guidelines for management of stable post-MI patients. The OAT is designed to test the hypothesis that opening a totally occluded IRA 3 to 28 days after MI in high-risk asymptomatic patients will improve clinical outcome and be cost-effective. The primary end point is the first occurrence of recurrent MI, hospitalization/treatment of New York Heart Association class IV congestive heart failure, or death. Trial background, design, and preliminary baseline characteristics of 2027 randomized patients are presented. Eligible patients are randomly assigned in equal proportions to optimal evidence-based medical care or optimal care plus late opening of the IRA using percutaneous coronary intervention of the occluded IRA. Treatment groups will be compared using intent-to-treat analysis. The results of OAT should have broad clinical impact by defining an evidence-based approach to the asymptomatic, high-risk, post-MI patient with an occluded IRA. If the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention are established, then a policy of routinely seeking and opening persistently occluded IRAs could be advocated. If not, this strategy should be avoided in this large subgroup of post-MI patients

CONTEXT: Early mechanical revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock is a therapeutic strategy that reduces mortality. It has been a class I recommendation in guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association since 1999 for patients younger than 75 years. However, little is known about implementation of these guidelines in practice. OBJECTIVES: To assess trends in early revascularization and mortality for patients with cardiogenic shock complicating AMI and to determine whether the national guidelines affect revascularization rates. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Prospective, observational study of 293,633 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (25,311 [8.6%] had cardiogenic shock; 7356 [29%] had cardiogenic shock at hospital presentation) enrolled in the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction (NRMI) from January 1995 to May 2004 at 775 US hospitals with revascularization capability (defined as the capability to perform cardiac catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], and open-heart surgery). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Management patterns and in-hospital mortality rates. RESULTS: There was an increase in primary PCI rates from 27.4% to 54.4% (P<.001) in hospitals with revascularization capability that paralleled the change in PCI for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. There was no significant change in rates of immediate coronary artery bypass graft surgery (from 2.1% to 3.2%). Propensity-adjusted multivariable analyses demonstrated that primary PCI was associated with a decreased odds of death during hospitalization (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.53). There were no differences in the rates of change in revascularization rates based on the date when the guidelines were released regardless of patient age. Overall in-hospital cardiogenic shock mortality decreased from 60.3% in 1995 to 47.9% in 2004 (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of PCI for patients with cardiogenic shock was associated with improved survival in a large group of hospitals with revascularization capability. The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines had no detectable temporal impact on revascularization rates. These findings support the need for increased adherence to these guidelines

More than 1.2 million percutaneous coronary interventions are performed annually in the United States, with only an estimated 33% performed in women, despite the established benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention and adjunctive pharmacotherapy in reducing fatal and nonfatal ischemic complications in acute myocardial infarction and high-risk acute coronary syndromes. This statement reviews sex-specific data on the safety and efficacy of contemporary interventional therapies in women

We investigated the association between race/ethnicity on the use of cardiac resources in patients who have acute myocardial infarction that is complicated by cardiogenic shock. The Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial examined the effect of reperfusion and revascularization treatment strategies on mortality. Patients screened but not enrolled in the SHOCK Trial (n = 1,189) were entered into the SHOCK registry. Of the patients in the United States registry (n = 538) who had shock due to predominant left ventricular failure, 440 were characterized as white (82%), 42 as Hispanic (8%), 34 as African-American (6%), and 22 as Asian/other (4%). The use of invasive procedures differed significantly by race/ethnicity. Hispanic patients underwent coronary angiography significantly less often than did white patients (38 vs 66%, p = 0.002). Among those patients who underwent coronary angiography, there were no race/ethnicity differences in the proportion of patients who underwent revascularization (p = 0.353). Overall in-hospital mortality (57%) differed significantly by race/ethnicity (p = 0.05), with the highest mortality rate in Hispanic patients (74% vs 65% for African-Americans, 56% for whites, and 41% for Asian/other). After adjustment for patient characteristics and use of revascularization, there were no mortality differences by race/ethnicity (p = 0.262), with all race/ethnicity subgroups benefiting equally by revascularization. In conclusion, the SHOCK registry showed significant differences in the treatment and in-hospital mortality of Hispanic patients who had cardiogenic shock, with these patients being less likely to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention. Therefore, early revascularization should be strongly considered for all patients, independent of race/ethnicity, who develop cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND: The Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial demonstrated the survival advantage of emergency revascularization versus initial medical stabilization in patients developing cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. The relative merits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with shock have not been defined. The objective of this analysis was to compare the effects of PCI and CABG on 30-day and 1-year survival in the SHOCK trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the 302 trial patients, 128 with predominant left ventricular failure had emergency revascularization. The selection of revascularization procedures was individualized. Eighty-one patients (63.3%) had PCI, and 47 (36.7%) had CABG. The median time from randomization to intervention was 0.9 hours (interquartile range [IQR], 0.3 to 2.2 hours) for PCI and 2.7 hours (IQR, 1.3 to 5.5 hours) for CABG. Baseline demographics and hemodynamics were similar, except that there were more diabetics (48.9% versus 26.9%; P=0.02), 3-vessel disease (80.4% versus 60.3%; P=0.03), and left main coronary disease (41.3% versus 13.0%; P=0.001) in the CABG group. In the PCI group, 12.3% had 2-vessel and 2.5% had 3-vessel interventions. In the CABG group, 84.8% received > or =2 grafts, 52.2% received > or =3 grafts, and 87.2% were deemed completely revascularized. The survival rates were 55.6% in the PCI group compared with 57.4% in the CABG group at 30 days (P=0.86) and 51.9% compared with 46.8%, respectively, at 1 year (P=0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Among SHOCK trial patients randomized to emergency revascularization, those treated with CABG had a greater prevalence of diabetes and worse coronary disease than those treated with PCI. However, survival rates were similar. Emergency CABG is an important component of an optimal treatment strategy in patients with cardiogenic shock, and should be considered a complementary treatment option in patients with extensive coronary disease