JACC
HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Coll Cardiol, 2003; 42:1380-1386, doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(03)01050-7
© 2003 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Webb, J. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Webb, J. G.

CLINICAL RESEARCH: CARDIOGENIC SHOCK

Percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock in the SHOCK trial

John G. Webb, MD, FACC*,*, April M. Lowe, MS{dagger}, Timothy A. Sanborn, MD, FACC{ddagger}, Harvey D. White, DSc§, Lynn A. Sleeper, ScD{dagger}, Ronald G. Carere, MD, FACC*, Christopher E. Buller, MD, FACC||, S. Chiu Wong, MD, FACC, Jean Boland, MD#, Vlad Dzavik, MD**, Mark Porway, MD, FACC{dagger}{dagger}, Gordon Pate, MB*, Geoffrey Bergman, MD, FACC, Judith S. Hochman, MD, FACC{ddagger}{ddagger} for the SHOCK Investigators

* St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada
{dagger} New England Research Institutes, Watertown, Massachusetts, USA
{ddagger} Evanston Northwestern Healthcare, Evanston, Illinois, USA
§ Green Lane Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
|| Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, Canada
New York Presbyterian, New York, New York, USA
# CHR Citadelle, Liege, Belgium
** Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Canada
{dagger}{dagger} Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
{ddagger}{ddagger} Division of Cardiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA

Manuscript received January 18, 2003; revised manuscript received March 20, 2003, accepted March 27, 2003.

* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. John G. Webb, Director, Cardiac Catheterization and Interventional Cardiology, St. Paul's Hospital, 1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6Z 1Y6.
webb{at}providencehealth.bc.ca


    Abstract
 Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
OBJECTIVES: We examined the clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics determining survival after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: The SHOCK (SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded coronaries for Cardiogenic shocK?) trial prospectively enrolled patients with shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (MI). Patients were randomized to a strategy of early revascularization or initial medical stabilization.

METHODS: Patients randomized to early revascularization underwent PCI or bypass surgery on the basis of predefined clinical criteria. Patients randomized to early revascularization who underwent PCI and had angiographic films available for analysis are the subject of this report (n = 82).

RESULTS: The median time from MI to PCI was 11 h. The majority of patients had occluded culprit arteries (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction [TIMI] grade 0 or 1 flow in 62%) and multivessel disease (81%). One-year mortality in PCI patients was 50%. Mortality was 39% if PCI was successful but 85% if unsuccessful (p < 0.001). Mortality was 38% if TIMI flow grade 3 was achieved, 55% with TIMI grade 2 flow, and 100% with TIMI grade 0 or 1 flow (p < 0.001). Mortality was 67% if severe mitral regurgitation was documented. Independent correlates of mortality were as follows: increasing age (p < 0.001), lower systolic blood pressure (p = 0.009), increasing time from randomization to PCI (p = 0.019), lower post-PCI TIMI flow (0/1 vs. 2/3) (p < 0.001), and multivessel PCI (p = 0.040).

CONCLUSIONS: Restoration of coronary blood flow is a major predictor of survival in cardiogenic shock. Benefit appears to extend beyond the generally accepted 12-h post-infarction window. Surgery should be considered in shock patients with severe mitral insufficiency or multivessel disease not amenable to relatively complete percutaneous revascularization.

Abbreviations and Acronyms
  GP = glycoprotein
  MI = myocardial infarction
  PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention
  SHOCK = SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded coronaries for Cardiogenic shocK
  TIMI = Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction


Retrospective studies suggest that early percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may improve outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock (1–5). The randomized SHOCK (SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded coronaries for Cardiogenic shocK?) trial showed that a strategy of early revascularization, either with surgery or PCI as deemed appropriate by the treating cardiologist, increased one-year survival from 34% to 47% (p = 0.025) compared with initial aggressive medical therapy in patients with shock due to left ventricular dysfunction complicating acute myocardial infarction (MI) (6). In this report, we examine the clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics and relationship to late mortality for patients undergoing PCI in the early revascularization arm of the SHOCK trial.


    Methods
 Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Trial design.   The SHOCK trial enrolled patients in 36 centers between 1993 and 1998 (6–8). Eligible patients had predominant left ventricular dysfunction resulting in cardiogenic shock within 36 h of MI. Patients were randomly assigned within 12 h of shock diagnosis to initial medical stabilization or emergency revascularization.

The SHOCK trial protocol recommended PCI of the infarct-related artery if patients had one- or two-vessel coronary artery disease. Percutaneous coronary intervention was also recommended if patients had three-vessel disease but the non-culprit vessel stenosis was <90% or supplied small branch vessels. It was recommended that PCI be performed only on the infarct-related artery.

Emergency coronary artery bypass grafting was recommended for patients with left main coronary artery stenosis ≥50%, patients with stenoses >90% in two non-culprit major vessels, patients in whom PCI was unsuccessful or who had disease unsuitable for PCI. It was also recommended that patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease who had successful PCI of a culprit stenosis be evaluated for subsequent coronary bypass surgery during the same hospitalization. Although these recommendations were made, the choice of revascularization procedure was individualized and decided solely by the site physicians.

A total of 302 patients were enrolled in the SHOCK trial. Of these, 152 patients were randomly assigned to emergency revascularization (Fig. 1). Twenty of these patients did not undergo revascularization because of rapid death, minor disease, or unsuitable anatomy. Thus, revascularization was attempted in 132 patients: initial coronary artery bypass in 48 patients and initial PCI in 84. Eight PCI patients subsequently underwent bypass surgery within 24 h of PCI, which was either unsuccessful or performed as a bridge to surgery. A total of 82 patients randomly assigned to emergency revascularization and selected for PCI (excluding two additional patients for whom the angiographic film was unavailable for analysis) are the subject of this report.



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1 Flowchart of SHOCK Trial patients. CABG = coronary artery bypass graft surgery; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention.

 
Angiographic core laboratory.   Angiograms were reviewed at the core laboratory (New York Hospital/Cornell Medical Center) by two independent, blinded readers. Discrepancies were resolved by a third reader. Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) criteria (9), an estimate of the amount of myocardium at risk based on the coronary artery jeopardy score (10) and other standard criteria were used (11–13). Significant coronary disease was defined as ≥50% diameter stenosis. A significant stenosis of the left main coronary artery was counted as two-vessel disease if the left coronary was non-dominant and as three-vessel disease if dominant, as well as left main disease. Percutaneous coronary intervention success was defined as the combination of a residual stenosis ≤50%, a ≥20% reduction in stenosis, and TIMI 2 or 3 flow.

Statistical methods.   The distributions of categorical variables were compared using Fisher exact test, and the distributions of ordered categorical variables, such as TIMI flow and the year PCI was performed, were compared using the Mantel-Haenszel test for linear trend. Group differences in continuous variables were compared using Student’s t test for comparisons of age and heart rate, and the Wilcoxon rank sum test for the remaining variables. Thirty-day and one-year survival curves were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank (to assess group differences in overall survival) and Wilcoxon test (to evaluate whether there was group difference in early deaths) were used to compare Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. One-year survival was also analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression. The survival time of one patient was censored at the time of heart transplantation. Variables such as baseline characteristics, clinical management, hemodynamic and angiographic findings, and outcomes found in Tables 1, 2, and 3 with a Cox regression univariate p value ≤0.20 were grouped and entered into intermediate models. The covariates with significant p values from these models were then combined to determine a final model with covariate p values <0.05. All analyses were conducted using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS, Cary, North Carolina) and S-Plus (Seattle, Washington).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1 Baseline Characteristics and Clinical Management of Patients Assigned to Early Revascularization and Undergoing PCI in the SHOCK Trial by One-Year Survival Status

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2 Angiographic Findings of Patients Assigned to Early Revascularization and Undergoing PCI in the SHOCK Trial by One-Year Survival Status (n = 82)

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 3 Angiographic Outcome and One-Year Survival After PCI in Patients Assigned to Early Revascularization in the SHOCK Trial (n = 82)

 

    Results
 Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Patient sample.   The PCI patient and clinical characteristics by vital status at one year are presented in Table 1. The median time from MI to shock was 5.1 h and from MI to PCI was 11 h. Survivors were seven years younger, on average, than non-survivors. Only 15% (3/20) of patients who underwent PCI after an episode of cardiopulmonary resuscitation survived for one year.

Angiographic findings.   Core laboratory angiographic findings are shown in Table 2. The majority of patients had multivessel disease (81%). The culprit lesion was most frequently in the left anterior descending artery (50%) and was usually severely stenotic or occluded (mean diameter stenosis 95 ± 8%). Survivors had higher ejection fractions than non-survivors (34 ± 11 vs. 27 ± 7, p = 0.025). Initial culprit artery patency (TIMI flow grade 2 or 3) was present in 38%, with normal coronary flow (TIMI 3) in 21% of patients. Flow was absent or severely reduced (TIMI 0 or 1) in 62%. There was a 45% one-year survival rate for initial occlusion (TIMI 0 or 1), and a 58% one-year survival rate for initial patency (TIMI 2 or 3 flow) (p = 0.363).

PCI procedure.   The most common complication (8.5%) occurring in the catheterization laboratory was an arrhythmia requiring urgent treatment. Death in the catheterization laboratory occurred in 3.7% (3 patients). Although 81% of patients had multivessel disease, most PCI patients underwent single-vessel procedures (87%). During the study period there was an increase in the frequency of multivessel procedures from 0% in 1993 to 1994, to 10% in 1995 to 1996 and 23% in 1997 to 1998 (p = 0.018). Stents were implanted in the culprit artery in 28 patients (34%). The culprit artery stenting rate increased during the study from 0% in 1993 to 1994, to 10% in 1995 to 1996 to 74% in 1997 to 1998 (p < 0.001). Percutaneous coronary intervention was more often successful in stented than unstented patients (93% vs. 67%, p = 0.013), although one-year survival was similar (54% vs. 48%, p = 0.82) (Fig. 2). Glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa (abciximab) use increased during the study period from 0% during 1993 to 1994, to 7% between 1995 to 1996 and 81% from 1997 to 1998 (p < 0.001).



View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 2 Relationship of stent implantation in the culprit artery and one-year survival in SHOCK trial patients assigned to early revascularization and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

 
PCI outcome.   Overall survival in the 82 patients selected for PCI was 54% (n = 44) at 30 days and 50% (n = 41) at one year. Percutaneous coronary intervention success was achieved in 76%. Thirty-day survival was 65% after successful PCI but only 20% if unsuccessful (p < 0.001). At one year, these values were 61% and 15%, respectively (p < 0.001). There were 17 patients with final post-PCI stenosis ≤50% who had reduced angiographic coronary flow (TIMI 0, 1, 2); this represents 53% of all patients with TIMI 0, 1, or 2 flow post-PCI. Their 30-day and one-year survival was 47%. Coronary flow after PCI was a significant determinant of survival (Fig. 3). All survivors had patent (TIMI 2 or 3 flow grade) infarct-related arteries immediately after PCI; however, patency did not guarantee survival (Table 3).



View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 3 Relationship of final angiographic culprit artery Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade after percutaneous coronary intervention and 30-day survival in SHOCK trial patients assigned to early revascularization.

 
The PCI success rates by age were 58% in the 12 patients ≥75 years and 79% in patients <75 years (p = 0.15). One-year survival after PCI was lower in the elderly (17% vs. 56%, p = 0.026).

Despite increasing rates of multivessel PCI, stent placement, and GP IIb/IIIa antagonist use over the five-year course of the trial, the one-year survival rate for patients who underwent PCI was similar over time (Fig. 4). One-year survival was 55% after single-vessel PCI but only 20% after a single-stage multivessel procedure (p = 0.048). One-year survival was 38% for eight patients who underwent emergency coronary bypass surgery within 24 h of PCI. Among patients undergoing PCI, 18% had severe mitral regurgitation but did not undergo urgent valve surgery, and their survival was 33%. In PCI patients without severe mitral regurgitation, survival was 64% (p = 0.202).



View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 4 Time trends in the interventional management of cardiogenic shock and one-year survival. A significant increase in the use of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (p = 0.018), stents, and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists (both <0.001) was observed. One-year survival and PCI success rates were similar over time (p = 0.889 for survival and p = 0.128 for success).

 
Correlates of death.   Independent correlates of death at one year based on multivariate Cox regression analysis are as follows: increasing age (p < 0.001), lower systolic blood pressure recorded on support measures (p = 0.009), increasing time from randomization to PCI (p = 0.019), lower final post-PCI TIMI flow grade (0/1 vs. 2/3) (p < 0.001), and multivessel PCI (p = 0.040) (Table 4). There was no association between time from MI or time from shock to PCI and outcome. Though time from randomization to PCI is a strong correlate of death, there were differences between patients who underwent rapid PCI (<0.87 h to PCI) and delayed PCI (≥0.87 h) signifying that severity of illness is contributing to this association. Patients with delayed PCI tended to be older than those with rapid PCI (67 ± 10 vs. 63 ± 10 years, p = 0.06), have more diabetes (37% vs. 15%, p = 0.038), a trend towards more left main disease (18% vs. 8%, p = 0.19) as well as a trend toward higher jeopardy score (7.6 ± 3.4 vs. 6.3 ± 3.0, p = 0.08), thus implying that they are a sicker group of patients in our cohort. When four outliers with long times from randomization to PCI (5.4 to 6.5 h) were removed, age, supported systolic blood pressure, and final TIMI flow remained significant, but multivessel PCI (p = 0.092) and time from randomization to PCI (p = 0.096) were no longer significant.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 4 Multivariate Cox Regression Results for One-Year Survival*

 
Ejection fraction and mitral regurgitation grade were not found to be correlates of death when included in multivariate modeling, but these were only available for one-third of the patients. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was not included as it was only available for two-thirds of the patients.


    Discussion
 Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Emergency revascularization in the SHOCK Trial was associated with an increase in one-year survival, consistent with 132 lives saved per 1,000 patients treated. This represents a benefit larger than for any other therapy tested for acute MI (6,8). Percutaneous coronary intervention constituted the most frequent mode of revascularization chosen when a strategy of emergency revascularization was assigned by protocol. In-hospital survival after PCI in the SHOCK trial was similar to that reported in the SHOCK registry (54% vs. 56%, respectively) (7,14).

Infarct artery patency.   Early reperfusion of an infarct-related artery is associated with improved outcome in shock (4,14,15). Thrombolysis results in relatively low rates of reperfusion in patients in whom shock is already established (3,16), and the likelihood of sustained reperfusion is higher with PCI (17–20). Post-PCI patency of the infarct artery is strongly associated with survival, even after adjustment for important clinical and hemodynamic characteristics. No patient who had an occluded infarct artery (TIMI flow grade 0 or 1) after PCI survived.

PCI was performed a median of 11 h after the onset of MI symptoms. It appears that, in the setting of shock, the benefit of PCI extends beyond the usually accepted 12-h post-MI window. Importantly, therapy appears effective for those transferred from primary care hospitals. The apparent lack of association between earlier times from MI or shock to PCI and survival may be explained by the use of intra-aortic balloon pump and thrombolytic agents in almost 90% and 50% of patients, respectively, who underwent PCI and survivor bias, whereby those who did not survive to the procedure are excluded.

PCI procedure
The success rate of PCI was relatively low (76%) but consistent with previous retrospective shock studies (3,4), and not unexpected given that most patients had diffuse disease, occluded arteries, and were hemodynamically unstable. This study predates the advent of widespread stenting in the setting of acute MI. Stents were used in 34% of patients, mainly to salvage a failed balloon PCI, and were largely first-generation devices implanted without the benefit of current adjunctive techniques. Despite this, the rate of PCI success was higher in stented than unstented patients. Similarly, GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor and thienopyridine use was infrequent but increased during the nearly six-year trial period. Potentially, the increased use of stenting and adjunctive therapies that improve coronary blood flow might further extend the benefits of PCI (17–21).

Multivessel disease.   Although multivessel disease was present in the majority of patients, most had single-vessel angioplasty. Percutaneous coronary intervention of the culprit lesion alone has been advocated in the management of acute MI (3,4). The prevalence of multivessel disease and the possibility of ischemia at a distance from the infarct zone and of progressive deterioration in left ventricular function may argue for a strategy of more complete revascularization with multivessel PCI or surgery (4,14,17,22).

Although the mode of revascularization was recommended by the protocol on the basis of the extent and severity of disease, the choice was at the discretion of the attending physician. It is notable that equivalent survival with surgery was achieved despite the selection of patients with more severe disease to undergo this means of revascularization (6). Survival after single-stage multivessel PCI procedures was disappointing, whether as a result of patient selection or less satisfactory revascularization. Where the likelihood of successful PCI is low or relatively complete revascularization cannot be achieved, emergency surgery may be preferable to PCI.

Mitral insufficiency.   The SHOCK study excluded enrollment of patients in whom the investigator determined that mitral valve replacement was clinically indicated. Among enrolled patients who had severe mitral regurgitation and underwent PCI alone, the one- year survival rate was a disappointing 33%. Mitral insufficiency is easily missed in shock patients and should be specifically sought with echocardiography or ventriculography before PCI. Although a reduction in mitral insufficiency may occur with PCI, this is unpredictable and infrequent. Severe mitral insufficiency may warrant early surgical correction (4,14,23).

PCI in the elderly.   The SHOCK trial suggested a lack of benefit for early revascularization in patients ≥75 years of age; however, numbers were small, with only 12 PCI patients ≥75 years of age. Although PCI tended to be less often successful in elderly patients, successful PCI is associated with increased survival. Dzavik et al. (24) reported higher survival rates for the 17% of patients ≥75 years of age in the SHOCK registry who were clinically selected to undergo early revascularization compared with those with late or no revascularization. This survival rate (52%) is comparable to the larger cohort of patients <75 years of age who underwent early revascularization in the registry. It seems reasonable to conclude that early revascularization may be appropriate for selected elderly patients and that management must be individualized.

Study limitations.   Although patient selection bias is of concern (2,4,14), the SHOCK trial adhered to strict criteria for the diagnosis of shock and randomization-mandated early revascularization. Patients appeared representative of the larger, unselected population in the SHOCK registry (2,14), although by design those who were not suitable for an aggressive strategy (e.g., life-shortening illnesses) were not enrolled (7,8). Only 40% of patients assigned to emergency revascularization had a left ventricular angiogram performed, and therefore associations between survival and ejection fraction and mitral regurgitation are possibly biased. It is likely that the association of certain characteristics and survival was not significant because of the limited number of patients. This study largely predates the advent of widespread stenting and the use of GP IIb/IIIa antagonists (17,20,25).

Conclusion.   In the SHOCK trial, successful early restoration of coronary blood flow is a major predictor of survival and an important therapeutic goal. Although very early intervention is preferable, in the setting of shock the benefit of reperfusion appears to extend beyond the generally accepted 12-h post-MI window. Surgery should be considered in shock patients with severe mitral insufficiency or multivessel disease not amenable to relatively complete percutaneous revascularization.


    Footnotes
 
Supported by R01 grants HL50020, HL49970, 1994 to 1999, from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.


    References
 Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Antoniucci D, Valenti R, Santoro G, et al. Systematic direct angioplasty and stent-supported direct angioplasty therapy for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: in-hospital and long-term survival. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:294–300[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Hochman JS, Boland J, Sleeper LA, et al. Current spectrum of cardiogenic shock and effect of early revascularization on mortality: results of an international registry. Circulation. 1995;91:873–891[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Webb JG, Hochman JS. Pathophysiology and management of cardiogenic shock due to primary pump failure. Ghersh B, Rahimtoola S. Acute Myocardial Infarction. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall; 1997. p. 308–327
  4. Webb JG. Interventional management of cardiogenic shock. Can J Cardiol. 1998;14:233–244[Medline]
  5. Perez-Castellano N, Garcia E, Serrano J, et al. Efficacy of invasive strategy for the management of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol. 1999;83:989–993[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, White H, et al. One year survival following early revascularization for cardiogenic shock. JAMA. 2001;285:190–192[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:625–634[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Godfrey E, et al. Should we emergently revascularize occluded coronaries for cardiogenic shock: an international randomized trial of emergency PTCA/CABG. Am Heart J. 1999;137:313–321[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. TIMI Study Group. Comparison of invasive and conservative strategies after treatment with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator in acute myocardial infarction: results of the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) phase II trial. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:618–627[Abstract]
  10. Califf RM, Phillips HR, Hindman MC, et al. Prognostic value of a coronary artery jeopardy score. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1985;5:1055–1063[Abstract]
  11. Ryan TJ, Faxon DP, Gunnary RM, et al. Guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: a report of the American College of Cardiology/Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;12:529–545
  12. Ellis SG, Vandormael MG, Cowley MJ, et al. Coronary morphologic and clinical determinants of procedural outcome with angioplasty for multivessel coronary disease: implications for patient selection. Circulation. 1990;82:1193–1202[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Sheehan FH. Cardiac angiography. Marcus ML, Schelbert HR, Skorton DJ, Wolf GL. Cardiac Imaging. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 1991. p. 109–148
  14. Webb JG, Sanborn T, Sleeper LA, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock in the SHOCK Trial Registry. Am Heart J. 2001;141:964–970[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Berger P, Holmes D, Stebbins A, Bates E, Califf R, Topol E. Impact of an aggressive catheterization and revascularization strategy on mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock in the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Coronary Arteries (GUSTO-1) Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;96:122–127
  16. Bates E, Topol E. Limitations of thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction complicated by congestive heart failure and cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;18:1077–1084[Abstract]
  17. Chan A, Chew D, Bhatt D, Moliterno D, Topol E, Ellis S. Long-term mortality benefit with the combination of stents and abciximab for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2002;89:132–136[CrossRef][Medline]
  18. Giri S, Mitchel J, Azar R, et al. Results of primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty plus abciximab with or without stenting for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol. 2002;89:126–131[CrossRef][Medline]
  19. Hasdai S, Harrington RA, Hochman JS, et al. Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade and outcome of cardiogenic shock complicating acute coronary syndromes without persistent ST-segment elevation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;36:685–692
  20. Stone GW, Grines CL, Cox DA, et al. The controlled abciximab and device investigation to lower late angioplasty complications (CADILLAC) investigators. Comparison of angioplasty with stenting, with or without abciximab, in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:957–966[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Cotter G, Kaluski E, Blatt A, et al. L-NMMA (a nitric oxide synthase inhibitor) is effective in the treatment of cardiogenic shock. Circulation. 2000;101:1358–1361[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Webb JG, Sleeper LA, Buller C, et al. Implications of the timing of onset of cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: a report from the SHOCK registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1084–1090[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Thompson CR, Buller C, Sleeper LA, et al. Cardiogenic shock due to acute severe mitral regurgitation complicating acute myocardial infarction: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1102–1109
  24. Dzavik V, Sleeper L, Cocke TP, et al. Early revascularization in associated with improved survival in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated with cardiogenic shock: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. Eur Heart J 2003;24:828–37
  25. Webb JG, Carere R, Hilton JD, et al. Usefulness of coronary stenting in cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol. 1997;79:81–84[CrossRef][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
M. S. Lee, C.-H. Tseng, C. M. Barker, V. Menon, D. Steckman, R. Shemin, and J. S. Hochman
Outcome after surgery and percutaneous intervention for cardiogenic shock and left main disease.
Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2008; 86(1): 29 - 34.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
H. R. Reynolds and J. S. Hochman
Cardiogenic Shock: Current Concepts and Improving Outcomes
Circulation, February 5, 2008; 117(5): 686 - 697.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Card Surg AdultHome page
I. George and M. C. Oz
Myocardial Revascularization after Acute Myocardial Infarction
Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 669 - 696.
[Full Text]


Home page
Eur Heart JHome page
S. Carstensen, G. C.I. Nelson, P. S. Hansen, L. Macken, S. Irons, M. Flynn, P. Kovoor, S. Y. Soo Hoo, M. R. Ward, and H. H. Rasmussen
Field triage to primary angioplasty combined with emergency department bypass reduces treatment delays and is associated with improved outcome
Eur. Heart J., October 1, 2007; 28(19): 2313 - 2319.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Eur Heart JHome page
P. Sorajja, B. J. Gersh, D. A. Cox, M. G. McLaughlin, P. Zimetbaum, C. Costantini, T. Stuckey, J. E. Tcheng, R. Mehran, A. J. Lansky, et al.
Impact of multivessel disease on reperfusion success and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction
Eur. Heart J., July 2, 2007; 28(14): 1709 - 1716.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
HeartHome page
K D Dawkins, T Gershlick, M de Belder, A Chauhan, G Venn, P Schofield, D Smith, J Watkins, H H Gray, and Joint Working Group on Percutaneous Coronary Inter
Percutaneous coronary intervention: recommendations for good practice and training
Heart, December 1, 2005; 91(suppl_6): vi1 - vi27.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
H. D. White, S. F. Assmann, T. A. Sanborn, A. K. Jacobs, J. G. Webb, L. A. Sleeper, C.-K. Wong, J. T. Stewart, P. E.G. Aylward, S.-C. Wong, et al.
Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting After Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: Results From the Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) Trial
Circulation, September 27, 2005; 112(13): 1992 - 2001.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.Home page
N. C. Dang, V. K. Topkara, M. Leacche, R. John, J. G. Byrne, and Y. Naka
Left ventricular assist device implantation after acute anterior wall myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: A two-center study
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., September 1, 2005; 130(3): 693 - 698.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Eur Heart JHome page
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]


Home page
HeartHome page
A G C Sutton, P Finn, J A Hall, A A Harcombe, R A Wright, and M A de Belder
Predictors of outcome after percutaneous treatment for cardiogenic shock
Heart, March 1, 2005; 91(3): 339 - 344.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Webb, J. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Webb, J. G.


HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK