Mechanical circulatory support versus vasopressors alone in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
Awad I JavaidJoel E MichalekAleksandra B GruslovaSerene A HoskinsChowdhury H AhsanMarc D FeldmanPublished in: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions (2023)
In this analysis of retrospective data of patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI, Impella use was associated with higher mortality, major bleeding, and in-hospital charges when compared to vasopressor therapy without MCS. When compared to IABP use, Impella was associated with no mortality benefit, along with higher major bleeding events and in-hospital charges. A vasopressor-only strategy suggested no difference in clinical outcomes when compared to IABP. This study uses the NIS for the first time to highlight outcomes in AMI-CS patients undergoing PCI when treated with vasopressor support without MCS, compared to Impella and IABP use.
Keyphrases
- acute myocardial infarction
- percutaneous coronary intervention
- st segment elevation myocardial infarction
- coronary artery disease
- st elevation myocardial infarction
- extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
- atrial fibrillation
- acute coronary syndrome
- antiplatelet therapy
- patients undergoing
- left ventricular
- coronary artery bypass grafting
- cardiovascular events
- healthcare
- left ventricular assist device
- risk factors
- cardiovascular disease
- heart failure
- emergency department
- type diabetes
- mesenchymal stem cells
- coronary artery bypass
- metabolic syndrome
- skeletal muscle
- cell therapy