Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

  • Published:
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The adverse impact of the development of cardiogenic shock in the setting of acute myocardial infarction was first described by Killip and Kimball in 1967. While the inhospital mortality rate in patients with myocardial infarction and no evidence of heart failure was only 6%, the mortality rate in those patients who developed cardiogenic shock was 81%. Despite advances in cardiovascular care and therapy since that initial report, including universal institution of cardiac care units, advances in hemodynamic monitoring, new inotropic and vasodilating agents, and even increasing utilization of thrornbolytic therapy, the mortality from acute myocardial infarction, when complicated by cardiogenic shock, remains disturbingly high, and cardiogenic shock remains the leading cause of death of hospitalized patients following acute myocardial infarction.

The grave prognosis associated with this condition has resulted in increased interest in potential therapeutic interventions, particularly in the area of reperfusion therapy. Several studies suggest that, in contrast to the beneficial effects of thrombolytic therapy in most patient populations suffering acute myocardial infarction, mortality rates are not decreased in those patients with cardiogenic shock at the time of lytic administration. Thrombolytic administration does, however, appear to lead to a modest reduction in the percent of patients with myocardial infarction who will subsequently develop cardiogenic shock during hospitalization.

Reperfusion rates with lytic therapy in patients with cardiogenic shock are disappointingly low, in the range of 42–48%, significantly lower than those achieved in patients without cardiogenic shock. These low perfusion rates may, in part, be explained by decreased coronary blood flow and perfusion pressure in patients with left ventricular pump failure.

Although promising as adjunctive therapy, it is unclear whether institution of balloon counterpulsation has any long-term benefit in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with thrombolytic therapy. Whether other or additional interventions, such as coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), decrease mortality rates in patients with cardiogenic shock remains to be determined.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Killip T, Kimball JT. Treatment of myocardial infarction in a coronary care unit.Am J Cardiol 1967;20:457–464.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell'Infarto Miocardico (GISSI). Effectiveness of intravenous thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction.Lancet 1986;1:397–401.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gruppo Itaiiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell'Infarto Miocardico. GISSI-2: A factorial randomized trial of alteplase versus streptokinase and heparin versus no heparin among 12,490 patients with acute myocardial infarction.Lancet 1990;336:65–71.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Goldberg RJ, Gore JM, Alpert JS, et al. Cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction.N Engl J Med 1991;325:1117–1122.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Holmes DR, Bates E. Cardiogenic shock during myocardial infarction: The GUSTO experience with thrombolytic therapy.Circulation 1993;88:I-253.

    Google Scholar 

  6. International Study Group. In-hospital mortality and clinical course of 20,891 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction randomized between alteplase and streptokinase with or without heparin.Lancet 1990;336:71–75.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kennedy JW, Ritchie JL, Davis KB, Fritz JK. Western Washington randomized trial of intracoronary streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction.N Engl J Med 1983;309:1477–1482.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Killip T. Cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction.J Am Coll Cardiol 1989;14:47–48.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Neuhaus KL, von Essen R, Tebbe U, et al. Improved thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction with frontloaded administration of alteplase: Results of the rt-PA-APSAC patency study (TAPS).J Am Coll Cardiol 1992;19:885–891.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kennedy JW, Gensini GG, Timmis GC, Maynard C. Acute myocardial infarction treated with intracoronary streptokinase: A report of the society for cardiac angiography.Am J Cardiol 1985;55:871–877.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Third International Study of Infarct Survival Collaborative Group. ISIS-3: A randomized comparison of streptokinase vs. tissue plasminogen activator vs. anistreplase and of aspirin plus heparin vs. aspirin alone among 41,299 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction.Lancet 1992;339:753–770.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hands ME, Rutherford JD, Müller JE, et al. The in-hospital development of cardiogenic shock after myocardial infarction: Incidence, predictors of occurrence, outcome and prognostic factors.J Am Coll Cardiol 1989;14:40–46.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hochman J, Boland J, Brinker J, et al. Current spectrum of cardiogenic shock and effect of early revascularization on mortality: Results of an international study.Circulation 1995;91:873–881.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Alonzo DR, Scheidt S, Post M, Killip T. Pathophysiology of cardiogenic shock.Circulation 1973;48:588–596.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Page DL, Caulfleld JB, Kastor JA, DeSanctis RW, Sanders CA. Myocardial changes associated with cardiogenic shock.N Engl J Med 1971;285:133–137.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wackers JF, Lie KI, Becker AE, Dürrer D, Wellens HJJ. Coronary artery disease in patients dying from cardiogenic shock or congestive heart failure in the setting of acute myocardial infarction.Br Heart J 1976;38:906–910.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Col J, Boland J, Miller D, McKinlay S, LeJemtel T, Hockman JS. Characterization and outcome of cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction by EKG abnormalities: Results of an international registry.J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;24:312A.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Becker RC. Hemodynamic, mechanical, and metabolic determinants of thrombolytic efficacy: A theoretic framework for assessing the limitations of thrombolysis in patients with cardiogenic shock.Am Heart J 1993;125:919–929.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Col NF, Gurwitz JH, Alpert JS, Goldberg RJ. Frequency of inclusion of patients with cardiogenic shock in trials of thrombolytic therapy.Am J Cardiol 1994;73:149–157.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mathey DG, Kuck KH, Tilsner V, Krebber HJ, Bleifeld W. Nonsurgical coronary artery recanalization in acute transmural myocardial infarction.Circulation 1981;63:489–497.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mueller HS, Cohen LS, Braunwald E, et al. Predictors of early morbidity and mortality after thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction.Circulation 1992;85:1254–1264.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Garrahy PJ, Hazlowa MJ, Forman S, et al. Has thrombolytic improved survival from cardiogenic shock? Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI II) results (abstract).Circulation 1989;80(Suppl II):II-623.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bates ER, Topol EJ. Limitations of thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction complicated by congestive heart failure and cardiogenic shock.J Am Coll Cardiol 1991;18:1077–1084.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Second International Study of Infarct Survival Collaborative Group Randomized 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.

    Google Scholar 

  25. AIMS Trial Study Group. Long-term effects of intravenous anistreplase in acute myocardial infarction: Final report of the AIMS study.Lancet 1990;335:427–431.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialists Collaborative Group. Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: Collaborative overview of early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomized trials of more than 1,000 patients.Lancet 1994;343:311–322.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wilcox RG, Olsson CG, Skene AM, von Der Lippe G, Jensen G, Hampton JR. Trial of tissue plasminogen activator for mortality reduction in acute myocardial infarction.Lancet 1988;2:525–530.

    Google Scholar 

  28. GUSTO Investigators. An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction.N Engl J Med 1993;329:673–682.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bengtson JR, Kaplan AJ, Peiper KS, et al. Prognosis in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction in the interventional era.J Am Coll Cardiol 1992;20:1482–1489.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Alosilla CE, Bell WW, Ferree J, de la Torre A. Thrombolytic therapy during acute myocardial infarction due to sudden occlusion of the left main coronary artery.J Am Coll Cardiol 1985;5:1253–1256.

    Google Scholar 

  31. de Feyter PJ, Serruys PW. Thrombolysis of acute total occlusion of the left main coronary artery in evolving myocardial infarction.Am J Cardiol 1984;53:1727–1728.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lew AS, Weiss AT, Shah PK, Fishbein MC, Berman DS, Maddahi J. Extensive myocardial salvage and reversal of cardiogenic shock after reperfusion of the left main artery by intravenous streptokinase.Am J Cardiol 1984;54:450–452.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Salvi A, Klugmann S, Grazia ED, Maras P, Camerini F. Myocardial reperfusion after acute occlusion of the left main coronary artery.Am J Cardiol 1983;51:1792–1793.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gutovitz AL, Sobel BE, Roberts R. Progressive nature of myocardial injury in selected patients with cardiogenic shock.Am J Cardiol 1978;41:469–475.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hochman JS, Choo H. Limitation of myocardial infarct expansion by reperfusion independent of myocardial salvage.Circulation 1987;75:299–306.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kurnik PB, Courtois MR, Ludbrook PA. Diastolic stiffening induced by acute myocardial infarction is reduced by early reperfusion.J Am Coll Cardiol 1988;12:1029–1039.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gurbel PA, Anderson RD, MacCord CS, et al. Arterial diastolic pressure augmentation by intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation enhances the onset of coronary artery reperfusion by thrombolytic therapy.Circulation 1994;89:361–365.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Blinc A, Planinsic G, Keber D, et al. Dependence of blood clot lysis on the mode of transport of urokinase into the clot-a magnetic resonance imaging study in vitro.Thromb Haemostas 1991;65:549–552.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Prewitt RM, Downes AMT, Gu S, Chan MS, Ducas J. Effects of hydralazine and increased cardiac output on recombinant tissue plasminogen activator-induced thrombolysis in canine pulmonary embolism.Chest 1991;99:708–714.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Goldenberg IF. Nonpharmacologic management of cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock.Chest 1992;102(Suppl 2): 596S-616S.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kern MJ, Aguirre FV, Tatineni S, et al. Enhanced coronary blood flow velocity during intraaortic balloon counterpulsation in critically ill patients.J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;21:359–368.

    Google Scholar 

  42. O'Rourke MF, Norris RM, Campbell TJ, Chang VP, Sammel NL. Randomized controlled trial of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation in early myocardial infarction with acute heart failure.Am J Cardiol 1981;47:815–820.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Waksman R, Weiss AT, Gotsman MS, Hasin Y. Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation improves survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.Eur. Heart J. 1993;14:71–74.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Prewitt RM, Gu S, Schick U, Ducas J. Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation enhances coronary thrombolysis induced by intravenous administration of a thrombolytic agent.J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;23:794–798.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Stomel RJ, Rasak M, Bates ER. Treatment strategies for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock in a community hospital.Chest 1994;105:997–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  46. O'Neill WW. Angioplasty therapy of cardiogenic shock: Are randomized trials necessary?J Am Coll Cardiol 1992;19:915–917.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Himbert D, Juliard JM, Steg G, Karrillon GJ, Aumont MC, Gourgon R. Limits of reperfusion therapy for immediate cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.Am J Cardiol 1994;74:492–494.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hochman JS, LeJemtel T. Management of cardiogenic shock. In: Braunwald E, Julian D, eds.Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction. Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 1994:267–287.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Cardiology, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, MA

    Glenn N. Levine

  2. Division of Cardiology, St. Luke's/Roosevelt Hospital Center, 1111 Amsterdam Avenue, 10025, New York, NY

    Judith S. Hochman M.D.

Authors
  1. Glenn N. Levine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Judith S. Hochman M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Levine, G.N., Hochman, J.S. Thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. J Thromb Thrombol 2, 11–20 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01063156

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01063156

Key words

Search

Navigation