HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (21) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jacobs, A. K. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Jacobs, A. K.

CLINICAL STUDY

Cardiogenic shock with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry

Alice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC^*, John K. French, PhD, MBChB, Jacques Col, MD, Lynn A. Sleeper, ScD, James N. Slater, MD, FACC^||, Louis Carnendran, MD^||, Jean Boland, MD^¶, Xianjiao Jiang, MS, Thierry LeJemtel, MD, FACC^**, Judith S. Hochman, MD, FACC^|| for the SHOCK Investigators

^* Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Green Lane Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
Cliniques Universitaires, Brussels, Belgium
New England Research Institutes, Watertown, Massachusetts, USA
^|| St. Luke’s–Roosevelt Hospital, New York, New York, USA
^¶ CHR Citadelle, Liège, Belgium
^** Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA

Manuscript received February 16, 2000; revised manuscript received June 19, 2000, accepted June 20, 2000.

Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Alice K. Jacobs, Boston Medical Center, 88 East Newton St., Boston, Massachusetts 02118
alice.jacobs{at}bmc.org

	Abstract

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion References

 
OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine the outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (MI).

BACKGROUND

Such patients represent a high-risk (ST-segment depression) or low-risk (normal or nonspecific electrocardiographic findings) group for whom optimal therapy, particularly in the setting of shock, is unknown.

METHODS

We assessed characteristics and outcomes of 881 patients with CS due to predominant left ventricular (LV) dysfunction in the SHOCK Trial Registry.

RESULTS

Patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI (n = 152) were significantly older and had significantly more prior MI, heart failure, azotemia, bypass surgery, and peripheral vascular disease than patients with ST-elevation MI (n = 729). On average, the groups had similar in-hospital LV ejection fractions (30%), but patients with non-ST-elevation MI had a lower highest creatine kinase and were more likely to have triple-vessel disease. Among patients selected for coronary angiography, the left circumflex artery was the culprit vessel in 34.6% of non-ST-elevation versus 13.4% of ST-elevation MI patients (p = 0.001). Despite having more recurrent ischemia (25.7% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.058), non-ST-elevation patients underwent angiography less often (52.6% vs. 64.1%, p = 0.010). The proportion undergoing revascularization was similar (36.8% for non-ST-elevation vs. 41.9% ST-elevation MI, p = 0.277). In-hospital mortality also was similar in the two groups (62.5% for non-ST-elevation vs. 60.4% ST-elevation MI). After adjustment, ST-segment elevation MI did not independently predict in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 2.02; p = 0.252).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CS and non-ST-segment elevation MI have a higher-risk profile than shock patients with ST-segment elevation, but similar in-hospital mortality. More recurrent ischemia and less angiography represent opportunities for earlier intervention, and early reperfusion therapy for circumflex artery occlusion should be considered when non-ST-elevation MI causes CS.

Abbreviations and Acronyms   CHF = congestive heart failure   CK(-MB) = creatine kinase (-MB)   CS = cardiogenic shock   ECG = electrocardiogram, electrocardiographic   LBBB = left bundle branch block   LV = left ventricular, left ventricle   MI = myocardial infarction   SHOCK = SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK?

In an international CS registry, patients with primary left ventricular (LV) failure associated with ST-segment depression, T-wave inversion, or previous left bundle branch block (LBBB) were older, developed shock later, and were less likely to undergo coronary angiography and early revascularization, compared with patients who had ST-segment elevation (10). In this small cohort study, the mortality in the two groups was similar. To further evaluate the characteristics of patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI complicated by CS shock and to determine whether the absence of ST-segment elevation is a predictor of in-hospital mortality, we compared MI patients with and without ST-segment elevation in a large registry associated with the SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded coronaries for Cardiogenic shocK? (SHOCK) Trial.

	Methods

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion References

 
SHOCK Trial Registry.   The SHOCK Trial was a randomized comparison of early percutaneous or surgical revascularization versus initial medical stabilization (including thrombolytic therapy and intra-aortic balloon pumping, where appropriate) for patients with acute MI complicated by CS (9). Patients with suspected CS, either ineligible for participation or eligible but not randomized, were entered into a registry that is described in this supplementary issue of the Journal (11). The institutional committee on human research approved the study protocol at each center.

Patient sample.   This report is based on 881 patients with CS due to primary LV failure, a subset of the 1,190 patients with CS complicating acute MI who were prospectively registered. Of 1,190 patients, five were excluded from this report because of missing ECG data. Of the remaining 1,185 patients, 304 patients had CS due to mechanical complications, cardiac tamponade, a cardiac catheterization laboratory complication, isolated right ventricular dysfunction, severe valvular heart disease, pharmacologic therapy (beta- or calcium-blocking agents) or noncardiac causes, and they were also excluded. The remaining 881 patients comprised the study group and included 152 patients (17.3%) without ST-segment elevation and 729 patients (82.7%) with ST-segment elevation.

Definitions.   ST-segment elevation MI was defined by the presence of at least one of the following: at least two ECG leads with new ST-segment elevation, new Q waves in at least two leads, posterior ST-segment elevation (anterior ST-segment depression in leads V2 or V3 with R/S > 1), posterior Q waves or new LBBB. Non-ST-segment elevation MI was defined by the absence of all of the above criteria. Predominant LV failure was designated as the etiology of CS when no other major shock categories (previously described [11]) were present. Creatine kinase (CK) values reported are the highest recorded (based on three or more measures for 71% of patients).

Data collection.   Data were abstracted from the medical record by the SHOCK study coordinators, who were centrally trained to complete standard study-report forms. Patient characteristics, MI characteristics, hemodynamics, procedure use and vital status at discharge were recorded. Cardiac catheterization and angioplasty reports were sent to the clinical Coordinating Center for abstraction and completion of the standard form. Among patients with predominant LV failure included in this analysis, right-heart catheterization was performed in 567 patients with pulmonary capillary wedge pressure recorded in 532 and cardiac index in 405 patients. Left ventricular ejection fraction was measured during hospitalization on the same day as, or post-shock, by LV angiography (36%), echocardiography (59%), or gated blood-pool scan (5%) in 299 patients. The following variables were available on a maximum 632 patients: ejection fraction, pulmonary artery pressures, history of elevated lipids, peripheral vascular disease, recurrence of ischemic events and re-infarction.

Statistical analysis.   We compared patients with non-ST-segment elevation and ST-segment elevation MI using the Fisher exact test for categorical variables, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for ordinal and non-normally distributed continuous variables, and the Student t-test for normally distributed continuous variables. For comparison of ordered angiographic variables (stenosis and coronary flow categories), the Mantel-Haenszel test for linear trends was used. In-hospital mortality by groups was analyzed using logistic regression. To determine whether ST-segment elevation (vs. non-ST-segment elevation) was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality, we constructed a multivariate model adjusting for patient and treatment differences. All variables that were collected on the overall cohort (right heart catheterization, hemodynamic values, and angiographic findings were excluded) and that had a univariate p value 0.20 in univariate group comparison were evaluated. All variables with a final p value 0.05 were retained in the model. All analyses were conducted using SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina).

	Results

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion References

 
Clinical characteristics.   Patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI were significantly older than patients with ST-segment elevation (Table 1). Gender was not associated with non-ST-segment elevation (36% female overall), and there was a similar proportion with prior hypertension, diabetes mellitus, smoking and hyperlipidemia in the two groups. Of note, there were significantly higher rates of prior MI, congestive heart failure (CHF), renal insufficiency, prior bypass surgery and peripheral vascular disease in patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 3 Hemodynamic Characteristicsof Patients With Predominant LV Failure

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1 Severity of coronary vessel disease in patients with shock due to LV failure undergoing coronary angiography. No or single-, double-, triple-vessel disease: n = 73 for non-ST-segment elevation and n = 443 for ST-segment elevation MI; left main disease: n = 72 for non-ST-segment elevation and n = 434 for ST-segment elevation MI.

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2 Rates of in-hospital coronary angiography and revascularization after the diagnosis of CS caused by LV failure. CABG = coronary artery bypass surgery; PTCA = percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion References

 
Non-ST-segment elevation MI.   Cardiogenic shock continues to be the leading cause of death in patients hospitalized with acute MI (12). Moreover, despite a better understanding of the importance of timeliness in treatment and advances in pharmacologic and mechanical reperfusion therapies that have decreased overall mortality with MI (1,7), the mortality associated with CS complicating acute MI has remained relatively high (10–13). Recent reports indicate a decreasing mortality over time with increasing rates of revascularization (14). The randomized SHOCK Trial revealed a trend toward lower mortality at 30 days, and significantly lower mortality at six months, in patients with MI treated with early revascularization (9). Therefore, it becomes important to identify patients with CS who might benefit from specific therapies.

Of patients presenting with acute MI, about 30% do not have ST-segment elevation (1), and a recent report of an international registry of patients in CS revealed that about 14% of patients with primary LV failure had non-ST-segment elevation MI (10). In fact, the binary classification system of acute MI has evolved from a pathological designation (transmural vs. subendocardial) to an ECG designation (Q wave vs. non-Q wave). However, the increased use of reperfusion therapy has made the clinical distinction between Q wave and non-Q wave MI less apparent. More recently, the direction of ST-segment deviation during acute infarction has been recognized to be a more powerful predictor of clinical outcome than the presence or absence of Q waves (4,15–17). It is also increasingly clear that the pathogenesis, clinical course, prognosis and treatment of patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation MI differ significantly from those of patients with ST-segment elevation MI (18–20). The striking finding of this study is the high rate of circumflex-artery occlusion as the culprit lesion in patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI, who also had more frequent prior MI and severe multivessel disease. The misclassification of non-ST-segment elevation as "nontransmural" MI leads to a failure to administer reperfusion therapy in the group of patients with "posterior" ST-segment elevation.

Patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI have smaller infarcts (as shown by lower peak CK levels), earlier times to peak CK, pathologic evidence of reperfusion, more subtotal occlusions among those undergoing early angiography (21–23), and more recurrent ischemia, compared with patients who have ST-segment elevation MI (24–26). In addition, clinical and demographic characteristics differ significantly by the presence or absence of ST-segment elevation with MI (20,27). Patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI generally are older, are more often female, and have a higher incidence of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, CHF and prior MI. Furthermore, although early mortality with non-ST-segment elevation MI is lower, the cumulative mortality at one to two years is similar to that of patients with ST-segment elevation, and patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI have more recurrent ischemia and re-infarction (20,25).

Clinical characteristics.   By contrast, the characteristics and outcome of patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI in CS are less clear. In a recent analysis of the Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO)-IIb trial, patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI in whom shock developed had a similar mortality but different clinical and angiographic characteristics than CS patients with ST-segment elevation MI (28). Similar to that study, patients in the SHOCK Trial Registry with non-ST-segment elevation MI were older and had a higher incidence of comorbid factors, including CHF, renal insufficiency and peripheral vascular disease. There was a higher incidence of prior MI and bypass surgery, compared with patients having ST-segment elevation MI, although the proportion of female patients was similar in each group. As expected, patients with non-ST-segment elevation received thrombolytic therapy less often than those with ST-segment elevation MI. Yet, the total CK and the ratio of highest CK to the upper limit of normal were lower in patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI. Furthermore, in the smaller subset of patients undergoing measurement of LV function, ejection fraction was similar between groups. The smaller infarcts in patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI may compensate for their higher baseline risk, resulting in the same mortality seen overall in the SHOCK Trial Registry. Similarly, the smaller infarcts in the non-ST-segment elevation group—compared with patients with ST-segment elevation MI—despite having more prior infarctions, may explain the similar LV function and hemodynamic measures observed, including heart rate, filling pressures and cardiac index values.

Angiographic characteristics.   As reported in previous studies, patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI had more multivessel disease and, specifically, more triple-vessel disease than did patients with ST-segment elevation MI (22). It is interesting that the left circumflex was the culprit artery significantly more often in patients with non-ST-segment elevation than in patients with ST-segment elevation MI, and this finding has also been noted in the absence of shock. Of note, most patients with acute MI whose ECG is misclassified are those with acute circumflex or circumflex obtuse marginal artery branch occlusion; infarction of the high lateral or posterolateral walls of the LV may not be detected on the standard 12-lead ECG (23,29). In this setting, the lack of ST-segment elevation may be associated with a total coronary occlusion or transmural (Q wave) infarction. Therefore, patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI represent a heterogeneous group for whom appropriate reperfusion therapy may be withheld. This has important implications, particularly in the setting of CS, where pharmacologic or mechanical reperfusion therapy may be indicated to prevent or treat shock.

In-hospital revascularization.   The role of revascularization for ST-segment elevation or new LBBB MI has previously been evaluated (30–33) and has recently been clarified (9). Emergency early revascularization resulted in a significant reduction in six-month mortality in the randomized SHOCK Trial (9). In the SHOCK Trial Registry, patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI underwent less coronary angiography and less angioplasty after the onset of CS, which was probably secondary to their higher-risk profile and more multivessel disease, but they had similar mortality compared with patients who had ST-segment elevation MI. Similar to studies of non-ST-segment elevation MI patients without shock, we saw a trend toward more recurrent ischemia in shock patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI. Thus, early angiography and appropriate revascularization might reduce recurrent ischemia and enhance outcome in this group of patients. However, the absence of a benefit in patients older than 75 years of age assigned to early revascularization in the SHOCK Trial should be noted.

In-hospital outcome.   Despite the smaller infarcts of patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI, their early mortality was similar to that of patients with ST-segment elevation. This may be a result of the higher-risk profile and possible underuse of potentially beneficial therapies, such as revascularization, in patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI. Alternatively, smaller infarcts and more viable myocardium (as evidenced by more recurrent ischemia) may work together to reduce mortality in this high-risk group. In addition, perhaps in the setting of shock, traditional risk factors for a poor outcome do not further affect mortality.

Study limitations.   These data should be interpreted with caution because potentially confounding factors influencing mortality cannot be expected to be equally distributed among the groups in this registry setting. In addition, we could not separate the group with non-ST-segment elevation MI into those with ST-segment depression, those with (possibly) old LBBB, or other subsets. Although these ECG-defined groups of patients with MI have been shown to have different features and prognoses, comparisons made between the entire group of patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI and those with ST-segment elevation MI remain valid. Conclusions concerning hemodynamic data and LV function should be made in view of the fact that these parameters were available only on a limited number of patients.

Conclusions.   Compared with shock patients who had ST-segment elevation MI, patients with non-ST-segment elevation are older and are more likely to have comorbid disease, prior infarctions and multivessel disease. In about 30% of these patients, the left circumflex is the culprit artery, suggesting that a standard 12-ECG in these patients may show "posterior" elevation. Despite their higher-risk profile, patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI and CS had an in-hospital mortality rate similar to that of patients with ST-segment elevation. The common occurrence of recurrent ischemia and the infrequent use of angiography represent opportunities for earlier intervention, which may enhance outcome. Early reperfusion therapy for circumflex-artery occlusion should be considered when non-ST-segment elevation MI causes CS.

	Footnotes

 
Supported by RO1 grants HL50020, HL49970, 1994–99, from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.

	References

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion References

 

1. ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. Lancet. 1988;2:349–360
2. Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialists’ (FTT) Collaborative Group. Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: collaborative overview of early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1000 patients. Lancet. 1994;343:311–322
3. Gruppo Italiano per lo studio della Streptokinasi nell’Infarto Miocardico. Effectiveness of intravenous thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction. Lancet. 1986;1:397–401
4. Boden WE, Kleiger RE, Gibson RS, et al. Favorable long-term prognosis of acute non-Q-wave myocardial infarction associated with absent or nonspecific electrocardiographic changes. Br Heart J. 1989;61:396–402
5. Rogers WJ, Bowlby LJ, Chandra NC, et al. Treatment of myocardial infarction in the United States (1990 to 1993). Observations from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. Circulation. 1994;90:2103–2114
6. French JK, Williams BF, Hart HH, et al. Prospective evaluation of eligibility for thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. Br Med J. 1996;312:1637–1641
7. Weaver WD, Simes RJ, Betriu A, et al. Comparison of primary angioplasty and intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review. JAMA. 1997;278:2093–2098
8. Nixon JV. Contemporary management of non-Q-wave myocardial infarction. Cardiology. 1989;6:77–84
9. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Effect of early revascularization on mortality in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1999;9:625–634
10. Hochman JS, Boland J, Sleeper LA, et al. Current spectrum of cardiogenic shock and effect of early revascularization on mortality. Circulation. 1995;91:873–881
11. SHOCK InvestigatorsHochman JS, Buller CE, Sleeper LA, et al. Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction—etiologies, management and outcome: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1063–1070
12. Goldberg RJ, Gore JM, Alpert JS, et al. Cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction; incidence and mortality from a community-wide perspective, 1975 to 1988. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:1117–1122
13. Lee L, Erbel R, Brown TM, Laufer N, Meyer J, O’Neill WW. Multicenter registry of angioplasty therapy of cardiogenic shock: initial and long-term survival. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;17:599–603
14. Goldberg RJ, Samad NA, Yarzebski J, Gurwitz J, Bigelow C, Gore JM. Temporal trends in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1162–1168
15. Schechtman KB, Capone RJ, Kleiger RE, et al. Risk stratification of patients with non-Q-wave myocardial infarction: the critical role of ST segment depression. Circulation. 1989;80:1148–1158
16. Ferlinz J. Acute myocardial infarction: does the lack of Q waves help or hinder? J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990;15:1208–1211
17. Spodick DH. Anatomic non specificity of Q-wave and ST infarcts. Chest. 1981;79:245
18. Spodick DH. Transmural vs. non-transmural infarction. Circulation. 1980;62:447–448
19. Klein LW, Helfant RH. The Q-wave and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction: differences and similarities. Progr Cardiovasc Dis. 1986;29:205–220
20. Hutter AM, De Sanctis RW, Flynn T, et al. Nontransmural myocardial infarction: a comparison of hospital and late clinical course of patients with that of matched patients with transmural anterior and transmural inferior myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 1981;48:595–602
21. Gibson RS. Clinical, functional, and angiographic distinctions between Q wave and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction: evidence of spontaneous reperfusion and implications for intervention trials. Circulation. 1987;75:128–138
22. Keen WD, Savage MP, Fischman DL, et al. Comparison of coronary angiographic findings during the first six hours of non-Q-wave and Q-wave myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 1994;74:324–328
23. De Wood MA, Stifter WF, Simpson CS, et al. Coronary arteriographic findings soon after non-Q-wave myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1986;315:417–423
24. Marmor A, Ludbrook PA, Sobel BE, et al. Factors presaging early recurrent myocardial infarction ("extension"). Am J Cardiol. 1981;48:603–610
25. Marmor A, Geltman EM, Schechtman K, et al. Recurrent myocardial infarction: clinical predictors and prognostic implications. Circulation. 1982;66:415–421
26. Kwon K, Freedman SB, Wilcox I, et al. The unstable ST segment early after thrombolysis for acute infarction and its usefulness as a marker of recurrent coronary occlusion. Am J Cardiol. 1991;67:109–115
27. Gibson RS, Klein LW. Non-Q-wave myocardial infarction revisited: 10 years later. Progr Cardiovasc Dis. 1997;39:399–444
28. Holmes DR Jr, Berger PB, Hochman JS, et al. Cardiogenic shock in patients with acute ischemic syndromes with and without ST-segment elevation. Circulation. 1999;100:2067–2073
29. Boden WE, Kleiger RE, Gibson RS, et al. Electrocardiographic evolution of posterior acute myocardial infarction: importance of early precordial ST-segment depression. Am J Cardiol. 1987;59:782–787
30. Hibbard MD, Holmes DR Jr, Bailey KR, Reeder GS, Bresnahan JF, Gersh BJ. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in patients with cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;19:639–646
31. Moosvi AR, Khaja F, Villanueva L, Gheorghiade M, Douthat L, Goldstein S. Early revascularization improves survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;19:907–914
32. Bengtson JR, Kaplan AJ, Pieper KS, et al. Prognosis in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction in the interventional era. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;20:1482–1489
33. Berger PB, Tuttle RH, Holmes DR, et al. One-year survival among patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, and its relation to early revascularization: results from the GUSTO-I trial. Circulation. 1999;00:873–878

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Singh, J. White, D. Hasdai, P. K. Hodgson, P. B. Berger, E. J. Topol, R. M. Califf, and D. R. Holmes Jr Long-Term Outcome and its Predictors Among Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Shock: Insights From the GUSTO-I Trial J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 30, 2007; 50(18): 1752 - 1758. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. S. Duvernoy and E. R. Bates Management of Cardiogenic Shock Attributable to Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Reperfusion Era J Intensive Care Med, July 1, 2005; 20(4): 188 - 198. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Authors/Task Force Members, S. Silber, P. Albertsson, F. F. Aviles, P. G. Camici, A. Colombo, C. Hamm, E. Jorgensen, J. Marco, J.-E. Nordrehaug, et al. Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: The Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology Eur. Heart J., April 2, 2005; 26(8): 804 - 847. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Urban The veteran and the rookie Eur. Heart J., January 1, 2005; 26(1): 1 - 2. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (21) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jacobs, A. K. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Jacobs, A. K.