ZARZA We are Zarza, the prestigious firm behind major projects in information technology.
Listen "Intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock"
Episode Synopsis
Intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock
Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed) . 2024 Dec;77(12):995-1007.
Abstract
Introduction and objectives: There are no clinical
data on the efficacy of intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with angiography-guided percutaneous coronary
intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiogenic shock. The current study sought to evaluate the impact of intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute
myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock.
Methods: Among a total of 28, 732 patients from the
nationwide pooled registry of KAMIR-NIH (November, 2011 to December, 2015) and KAMIR-V (January, 2016 to June, 2020), we selected a total of 1833 patients (6.4%) with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention of the culprit vessel. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 1 year, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and definite or probable stent thrombosis.
Results: Among the study population, 375 patients
(20.5%) underwent intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention and 1458 patients (79.5%) underwent angiography-guided percutaneous
coronary intervention. Intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a significantly lower risk of 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events than angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (19.5% vs 28.2%; HR, 0.59; 95%CI, 0.45-0.77; P<.001), mainly driven by a lower
risk of cardiac death (13.7% vs 24.0%; adjusted HR, 0.53; 95%CI, 0.39-0.72; P<.001). These results were consistent in propensity score matching (HR, 0.68; 95%CI, 0.46-0.99),
inverse probability weighting (HR, 0.61; 95%CI, 0.45-0.83), and Bayesian analysis (Odds ratio, 0.66, 95% credible
interval, 0.49-0.88).
Conclusions: In acute myocardial infarction patients
with cardiogenic shock, intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events at 1-year than angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention, mainly driven by the lower risk of cardiac death.
Disclaimer:
Lupin makes no representation or warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any scientific information shared by the HCP on the STAR
UPDATE podcast. You should not allow the contents of this to substitute for your own medical judgment, which you should exercise in evaluating the information on this website.
Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed) . 2024 Dec;77(12):995-1007.
Abstract
Introduction and objectives: There are no clinical
data on the efficacy of intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with angiography-guided percutaneous coronary
intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiogenic shock. The current study sought to evaluate the impact of intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute
myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock.
Methods: Among a total of 28, 732 patients from the
nationwide pooled registry of KAMIR-NIH (November, 2011 to December, 2015) and KAMIR-V (January, 2016 to June, 2020), we selected a total of 1833 patients (6.4%) with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention of the culprit vessel. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 1 year, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and definite or probable stent thrombosis.
Results: Among the study population, 375 patients
(20.5%) underwent intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention and 1458 patients (79.5%) underwent angiography-guided percutaneous
coronary intervention. Intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a significantly lower risk of 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events than angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (19.5% vs 28.2%; HR, 0.59; 95%CI, 0.45-0.77; P<.001), mainly driven by a lower
risk of cardiac death (13.7% vs 24.0%; adjusted HR, 0.53; 95%CI, 0.39-0.72; P<.001). These results were consistent in propensity score matching (HR, 0.68; 95%CI, 0.46-0.99),
inverse probability weighting (HR, 0.61; 95%CI, 0.45-0.83), and Bayesian analysis (Odds ratio, 0.66, 95% credible
interval, 0.49-0.88).
Conclusions: In acute myocardial infarction patients
with cardiogenic shock, intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events at 1-year than angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention, mainly driven by the lower risk of cardiac death.
Disclaimer:
Lupin makes no representation or warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any scientific information shared by the HCP on the STAR
UPDATE podcast. You should not allow the contents of this to substitute for your own medical judgment, which you should exercise in evaluating the information on this website.
In God we trust