Advertisement

Elective Versus Emergency PCI: Cardiogenic Shock

  • Michael S. Kim
  • Jaekyoung Hong
  • Larry S. Dean
Chapter

Abstract

Percutaneous coronary intervention remains a mainstay in the daily practice of interventional cardiologists. While overall volumes of PCI in the United States are declining, one can argue that with the advent of newer technology and devices, the volume of anatomically high-risk PCI (i.e., left main stenting, diffuse coronary artery disease) and/or PCI in high-risk patients (i.e., cardiogenic shock, poor LV function, and last remaining conduit) will continue to rise. As a result, interventionalists in contemporary practice must be more vigilant than ever in performing thoughtful assessments of the indications and/or risks of PCI, as well as remain current on available data and devices in order to optimally guide their intra-lab decision making while caring for patients undergoing PCI in the catheterization laboratory.

Keywords

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Cardiogenic Shock Stent Thrombosis Vascular Access Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK et al (2007) Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 356:1503–1516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chan PS, Patel MR, Klein LW et al (2011) Appropriateness of percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA 306:53–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abizaid A, Pichard AD, Mintz GS et al (2001) Intravascular-ultrasound-guided percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty/provisional stent implantation strategy: impact on long-term clinical follow-up. Int J Cardiovasc Intervent 4:107–114PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pijls NH, Fearon WF, Tonino PA et al (2010) Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (fractional flow reserve versus angiography for multivessel evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 56:177–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J et al (2011) Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet 377:1409–1420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yusuf S, Zhao F, Mehta SR, Chrolavicius S, Tognoni G, Fox KK (2001) Effects of clopidogrel in addition to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. N Engl J Med 345:494–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sabatine MS, Cannon CP, Gibson CM et al (2005) Effect of clopidogrel pretreatment before percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with fibrinolytics: the PCI-CLARITY study. JAMA 294:1224–1232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lincoff AM, Bittl JA, Harrington RA et al (2003) Bivalirudin and provisional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade compared with heparin and planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade during percutaneous coronary intervention: REPLACE-2 randomized trial. JAMA 289:853–863PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stone GW, McLaurin BT, Cox DA et al (2006) Bivalirudin for patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 355:2203–2216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stone GW, Witzenbichler B, Guagliumi G et al (2011) Heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor versus bivalirudin monotherapy and paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction (HORIZONS-AMI): final 3-year results from a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 377:2193–2204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lefevre T, Louvard Y, Morice MC et al (2000) Stenting of bifurcation lesions: classification, treatments, and results. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 49:274–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Louvard Y, Thomas M, Dzavik V et al (2008) Classification of coronary artery bifurcation lesions and treatments: time for a consensus! Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 71:175–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gibson CM, Cannon CP, Murphy SA, Marble SJ, Barron HV, Braunwald E (2002) Relationship of the TIMI myocardial perfusion grades, flow grades, frame count, and percutaneous coronary intervention to long-term outcomes after thrombolytic administration in acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 105:1909–1913PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Svilaas T, Vlaar PJ, van der Horst IC et al (2008) Thrombus aspiration during primary percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 358:557–567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vlaar PJ, Svilaas T, van der Horst IC et al (2008) Cardiac death and reinfarction after 1 year in the thrombus aspiration during percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction study (TAPAS): a 1-year follow-up study. Lancet 371:1915–1920PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gasior M, Gierlotka M, Lekston A et al (2007) Comparison of outcomes of direct stenting versus stenting after balloon predilation in patients with acute myocardial infarction (DIRAMI). Am J Cardiol 100:798–805PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ozdemir R, Sezgin AT, Barutcu I, Topal E, Gullu H, Acikgoz N (2006) Comparison of direct stenting versus conventional stent implantation on blood flow in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Angiology 57:453–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fischman DL, Leon MB, Baim DS et al (1994) A randomized comparison of coronary-stent placement and balloon angioplasty in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Stent Restenosis Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 331:496–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stone GW, Moses JW, Ellis SG et al (2007) Safety and efficacy of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. N Engl J Med 356:998–1008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pasceri V, Patti G, Speciale G, Pristipino C, Richichi G, Di Sciascio G (2007) Meta-analysis of clinical trials on use of drug-eluting stents for treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 153:749–754PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spertus JA, Kettelkamp R, Vance C et al (2006) Prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of premature discontinuation of thienopyridine therapy after drug-eluting stent placement: results from the PREMIER registry. Circulation 113:2803–2809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stone GW, Parise H, Witzenbichler B et al (2010) Selection criteria for drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents and the impact of routine angiographic follow-up: 2-year insights from the HORIZONS-AMI (harmonizing outcomes with revascularization and stents in acute myocardial infarction) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 56:1597–1604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Antman EM, Hand M, Armstrong PW et al (2008) Focused update of the ACC/AHA 2004 guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: developed in collaboration with the Canadian Cardiovascular Society endorsed by the American Academy of Family Physicians: 2007 Writing Group to review new evidence and update the ACC/AHA 2004 guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, writing on behalf of the 2004 Writing Committee. Circulation 117:296–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kushner FG, Hand M, Smith SC Jr et al (2009) 2009 focused updates: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (updating the 2004 guideline and 2007 focused update) and ACC/AHA/SCAI guidelines on percutaneous coronary intervention (updating the 2005 guideline and 2007 focused update) a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 54:2205–2241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG et al (1999) Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should we emergently revascularize occluded coronaries for cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 341:625–634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vogel RA, Shawl F, Tommaso C et al (1990) Initial report of the national registry of elective cardiopulmonary bypass supported coronary angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol 15:23–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dixon SR, Henriques JP, Mauri L et al (2009) A prospective feasibility trial investigating the use of the impella 2.5 system in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (the PROTECT I trial): initial U.S. experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2:91–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Burkhoff D, Cohen H, Brunckhorst C, O’Neill WW (2006) A randomized multicenter clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device versus conventional therapy with intraaortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock. Am Heart J 152:469 e1–469 e8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Riley RF, Don CW, Powell W, Maynard C, Dean LS (2011) Trends in coronary revascularization in the United States from 2001 to 2009: recent declines in percutaneous coronary intervention volumes. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 4:193–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael S. Kim
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jaekyoung Hong
    • 1
    • 2
  • Larry S. Dean
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of CardiologyUniversity of Washington School of MedicineSeattleUSA
  2. 2.University of Washington Medical CenterSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations