Interventional Cardiology. Группа авторов
therapy for myocardial infarction with ST‐segment elevation. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:1179–89.
107 107 Antman EM, Morrow DA, McCabe CH, et al. Enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin with fibrinolysis for ST‐elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2006; 354:1477–88.
108 108 ASSENT‐3 Investigators. Efficacy and safety of tenecteplase in combination with enoxaparin, abciximab, or unfractionated heparin: the ASSENT‐3 randomised trial in acute myocardial infarction. The Lancet 2001; 358:605–13.
109 109 Ross AM, Molhoek P, Lundergan C, et al. Randomized comparison of enoxaparin, a low‐molecular‐weight heparin, with unfractionated heparin adjunctive to recombinant tissue plasminogen activator thrombolysis and aspirin: second trial of Heparin and Aspirin Reperfusion Therapy (HART II). Circulation 2001; 104:648–52.
110 110 The PARADIGM Investigators. Combining thrombolysis with the platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor lamifiban: results of the Platelet Aggregation Receptor Antagonist Dose Investigation and Reperfusion Gain in Myocardial Infarction (PARADIGM) Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 32:2003–10.
111 111 Ronner E, van Kesteren HA, Zijnen P, et al. Safety and efficacy of eptifibatide vs placebo in patients receiving thrombolytic therapy with streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction; a phase II dose escalation, randomized, double‐blind study. Eur Heart J 2000; 21:1530–6.
112 112 Antman EM, Giugliano RP, Gibson CM, et al. Abciximab facilitates the rate and extent of thrombolysis: results of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 14 trial. The TIMI 14 Investigators. Circulation 1999; 99:2720–32.
113 113 Ronner E, van Domburg RT, van den Brand MJBM, et al. Platelet GP IIb/IIIa receptor blockers for failed thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction, alone or as adjunct to other rescue therapies; single centre retrospective analysis of 548 consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2002; 23:1529–37.
114 114 Denktas AE, Athar H, Henry TD, et al. Reduced‐dose fibrinolytic acceleration of ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction treatment coupled with urgent percutaneous coronary intervention compared to primary percutaneous coronary intervention alone results of the AMICO (Alliance for Myocardial Infarction Care Optimization) Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2008; 1:504–10.
115 115 Armstrong PW, Gershlick AH, Goldstein P, et al. Fibrinolysis or primary PCI in ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:1379–87.
116 116 Pu J, Ding S, Ge H, et al. Efficacy and Safety of a Pharmaco‐Invasive Strategy With Half‐Dose Alteplase Versus Primary Angioplasty in ST‐Segment‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction: EARLY‐MYO Trial (Early Routine Catheterization After Alteplase Fibrinolysis Versus Primary PCI in Acute ST‐Segment‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction). Circulation 2017; 136:1462–73.
117 117 Roule V, Ardouin P, Blanchart K, et al. Prehospital fibrinolysis versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST‐elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Critical Care (London, England) 2016; 20:359.
118 118 Siontis KC, Barsness GW, Lennon RJ, et al. Pharmacoinvasive and Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategies in ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction (from the Mayo Clinic STEMI Network). Amer J Cardiol 2016; 117:1904–10.
119 119 Carrillo X, Fernandez‐Nofrerias E, Rodriguez‐Leor O, et al. Early ST elevation myocardial infarction in non‐capable percutaneous coronary intervention centres: in situ fibrinolysis vs percutaneous coronary intervention transfer. Eur Heart J 2016; 37:1034–40.
120 120 Berwanger O, Lopes RD, Moia DDF, et al. Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With STEMI Treated With Fibrinolysis: TREAT Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 73:2819–28.
121 121 Spaulding C, Henry P, Teiger E, et al. Sirolimus‐eluting versus uncoated stents in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:1093–104.
122 122 Laarman GJ, Suttorp MJ, Dirksen MT, et al. Paclitaxel‐eluting versus uncoated stents in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:1105–13.
123 123 Menichelli M, Parma A, Pucci E, et al. Randomized trial of Sirolimus‐Eluting Stent Versus Bare‐Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction (SESAMI). J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49:1924–30.
124 124 Sabate M, Cequier A, Iñiguez A, et al. Everolimus‐eluting stent versus bare‐metal stent in ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (EXAMINATION): 1 year results of a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 2012; 380:1482–90.
125 125 Sabaté M, Brugaletta S, Cequier A, et al. Clinical outcomes in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with everolimus‐eluting stents versus bare‐metal stents (EXAMINATION): 5‐year results of a randomised trial. The Lancet 2016; 387:357–66.
126 126 Hofma SH, Brouwer J, Velders MA, et al. Second‐generation everolimus‐eluting stents versus first‐generation sirolimus‐eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction. 1‐year results of the randomized XAMI (XienceV Stent vs Cypher Stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60:381–7.
127 127 Räber L, Kelbæk H, Ostojic M, et al. Effect of biolimus‐eluting stents with biodegradable polymer vs bare‐metal stents on cardiovascular events among patients with acute myocardial infarction: the COMFORTABLE AMI randomized trial. JAMA 2012; 308:777–87.
128 128 Valdes‐Chavarri M, Kedev S, Neskovic AN, et al. Randomised evaluation of a novel biodegradable polymer‐based sirolimus‐eluting stent in ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction: the MASTER study. EuroIntervention 2019; 14:e1836–e1842.
129 129 Pilgrim T, Heg D, Roffi M, et al. Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus‐eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus‐eluting stent for percutaneous coronary revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE): a randomised, single‐blind, non‐inferiority trial. The Lancet 2014; 384:2111–22.
130 130 Pilgrim T, Piccolo R, Heg D, et al. Ultrathin‐strut, biodegradable‐polymer, sirolimus‐eluting stents versus thin‐strut, durable‐polymer, everolimus‐eluting stents for percutaneous coronary revascularisation: 5‐year outcomes of the BIOSCIENCE randomised trial. The Lancet 2018; 392:737–46.
131 131 Iglesias JF, Muller O, Heg D, et al. Biodegradable polymer sirolimus‐eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus‐eluting stents in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (BIOSTEMI): a single‐blind, prospective, randomised superiority trial. The Lancet 2019; 394:1243–53.
132 132 Sabaté M, Alfonso F, Cequier A, et al. Magnesium‐Based Resorbable Scaffold Versus Permanent Metallic Sirolimus‐Eluting Stent in Patients With ST‐Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: The MAGSTEMI Randomized Clinical Trial. Circulation 2019; 140:1904–16.
CHAPTER 14
The Management of Cardiogenic Shock and Hemodynamic Support Devices and Techniques
Bimmer Claessen and José P.S. Henriques
Introduction
Even in the current era of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains a dramatic and lethal condition. As of 2020, there is only one proven intervention that results in increased survival of cardiogenic shock complicating MI: prompt reperfusion as shown by the SHOCK (should we emergently revascularize occluded coronaries for cardiogenic shock) trial [1]. In this chapter evidence on medical and mechanical management of cardiogenic shock is discussed.
Definition of Shock
Shock is defined as a clinical condition where there is inadequate end‐organ perfusion due to failure of the heart to pump blood in adequate quantities. There is currently no uniform definition of cardiogenic shock