Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that the New York State Cardiac Surgery and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Reporting System, which makes public the operator-specific mortality for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), may deter operators from providing revascularization to high-risk cardiac patients in New York compared to other states. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 545 US patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock due to predominant left ventricular failure enrolled in the SHOCK Registry. Adjusting for case mix using a propensity score method, we compared the use of coronary angiography, PCI, CABG, and outcomes between 220 patients in New York and 325 in other states. RESULTS: New York patients were older with similar or less severe baseline characteristics. After propensity score adjustment, New York patients were less likely than non-New York patients to undergo coronary angiography (odds ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.31-0.68, P < .001) and PCI (odds ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.33-0.77, P = .002). Coronary artery bypass graft rates were similarly low (14.1% vs 15.1%, P = not significant), but New York patients waited significantly longer after shock onset for surgery (101.2 vs 10.3 hours, P < .001) with only 32.3% of New York patients vs 75.5% of non-New York patients (P < .001) taken for CABG within 3 days of shock onset. CONCLUSIONS: In our propensity-adjusted retrospective analysis, New York patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock were less likely to undergo coronary angiography and PCI and waited significantly longer to receive CABG than their non-New York counterparts. These findings suggest that state-required reporting to the New York State Cardiac Surgery and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Reporting System may result in the reluctance to revascularize the highest-risk cardiac patients

BACKGROUND: In cardiogenic shock (CS), conclusive data on serial hemodynamic measurements for treatment guidance and prognosis are lacking. METHODS: The SHOCK (Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock?) Trial tested early revascularization (ERV) vs initial medical stabilization (IMS) in CS complicating acute myocardial infarction and serially assessed hemodynamics by pulmonary artery catheter. RESULTS: Data were available in 278 patients (95%) surviving to the first measurement with predominant left ventricular failure at baseline and in 174 patients (70%) at follow-up. Baseline and follow-up hemodynamic data were similar in the treatment groups. The median time from CS to baseline measurements was 3.3 h in both treatment groups, whereas follow-up measurements were obtained earlier in the IMS group (median time, 10.6 h) than in the ERV group (median time, 12.5 h; p = 0.043). At baseline, stroke volume index (SVI) was an independent predictor of 30-day mortality after adjustment for age (odds ratio, 0.69 per 5 mL/m2 increase; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.87; p = 0.002). At follow-up, both stroke work index (SWI) [odds ratio, 0.54 per 5 g/m/m2 increase; 95% confidence interval, 0.39 to 0.76; p < 0.001] and SVI (odds ratio, 0.59 per 5 mL/m2 increase; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 0.77; p < 0.001) were similarly powerful predictors of 30-day mortality after adjustment for age. CONCLUSIONS: SVI and SWI are the most powerful hemodynamic predictors of 30-day mortality in CS patients. Hemodynamic parameters are similar for surviving patients following ERV and IMS. Thus, early hemodynamic stability after IMS should not delay revascularization since long-term outcomes are superior with ERV