Functional Status and Quality of Life After Emergency Revascularization for Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction
Lynn A. Sleeper, ScD*,*,
Krishnan Ramanathan, MD
,
Michael H. Picard, MD
,
Thierry H. LeJemtel, MD
,
Harvey D. White, MD||,
Vladimir Dzavik, MD¶,
Deborah Tormey, RN#,
Nancy E. Avis, PhD**,
Judith S. Hochman, MD
for the SHOCK Investigators
* New England Research Institutes, Watertown, Massachusetts
New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Division of Cardiology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York
|| Department of Cardiology, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
¶ Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
# St. Lukes/Roosevelt Hospital Center, New York, New York
** Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

View larger version (28K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1 The SHOCK trial patient flow: follow-up interviews and one-year outcome. Bolded boxes indicate cohorts included in this report. *One-year status unknown for one participant assigned to the initial medical stabilization group.
|
|

View larger version (25K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2 Outcome of 126 SHOCK trial hospital survivors with at least one interview, 69 assigned to the emergency revascularization (ERV) group and 57 assigned to the initial medical stabilization (IMS) group. There were significant differences between treatment groups at six months (p = 0.035) and one year (p = 0.014) White bars = New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class I/II; ruled bars = NYHA functional class III/IV; black bars = deceased. MI = myocardial infarction.
|
|
Copyright © 2005 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.