Published online Sep 26, 2023. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v15.i9.439
Peer-review started: June 9, 2023
First decision: July 19, 2023
Revised: July 31, 2023
Accepted: August 29, 2023
Article in press: August 29, 2023
Published online: September 26, 2023
Processing time: 103 Days and 21.5 Hours
Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening complication of acute myocardial infarction with high morbidity and mortality rates. Primary percutaneous coro
To investigate the immediate mortality rates in patients with CS undergoing primary PCI and identify mortality predictors.
We conducted a retrospective analysis of 305 patients with CS who underwent primary PCI at the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Karachi, Pak
In a sample of 305 patients with 72.8% male patients and a mean age of 58.1 ± 11.8 years, the immediate mortality rate was found to be 54.8% (167). Multivariable analysis identified Killip class IV at presentation [odds ratio (OR): 2.0; 95% co
Immediate mortality rate in patients with CS undergoing primary PCI remains high despite advances in treatment strategies. Killip class IV at presentation, multivessel disease, and high thrombus burden (grade ≥ 4) were identified as independent predictors of immediate mortality. These findings underscore the need for aggressive management and close monitoring of patients with CS undergoing primary PCI, particularly in those with these high-risk characteristics.
Core Tip: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a severe form of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) associated with low blood pressure, poor organ perfusion, and high mortality rates. Overall, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plays a crucial role in the management of patients with CS by improving blood flow to the heart, restoring cardiac function, and reducing mortality rates. However, the success of primary PCI depends on several factors, including the timeliness of treatment, the skill and experience of the operators performing the procedure, and the patient's overall health status. Therefore, it is essential to identify high-risk patients and provide timely appropriate treatment to achieve the best outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective analysis of 305 patients with CS complicated AMI undergone primary PCI at our center. It has been observed the immediate mortality rate was unacceptably high at 54.8% with cardiac arrest followed by renal failure, multi-organ dysfunction, sepsis, hypoxic brain injury and cerebrovascular accident as a cause of mortality. Killip class IV at presentation, multivessel disease, and high thrombus burden (grade ≥ 4) were identified as independent predictors of immediate mortality in multivariable analysis.
- Citation: Solangi BA, Shah JA, Kumar R, Batra MK, Ali G, Butt MH, Nisar A, Qamar N, Saghir T, Sial JA. Immediate in-hospital outcomes after percutaneous revascularization of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. World J Cardiol 2023; 15(9): 439-447
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1949-8462/full/v15/i9/439.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4330/wjc.v15.i9.439
The prevalence of myocardial infarction is estimated to vary by age group, with reported rates of 3.8% among individuals under 60 years of age and a higher prevalence of 9.5% among those aged 60 years and above. Within the context of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), a critical complication known as cardiogenic shock (CS) emerges as a life-threatening concern[1]. This condition stands as the leading cause of mortality associated with AMI, with reported incidence rates ranging from 5% to 15%[2,3]. CS is a medical emergency that occurs when the heart is unable to pump enough blood to meet the body's needs. It can be caused by a variety of conditions, including myocardial infarction (heart attack), car
Patients with CS are at risk of developing several in-hospital complications, which include; acute kidney injury (AKI) as a result of reduced kidney perfusion due to a decreased cardiac output and low blood pressure[8], arrhythmias such as atrial fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia[9], pulmonary edema due to excessive fluid administration or impaired car
The management of CS requires a multidisciplinary approach involving cardiology, critical care, and interventional teams. Clinical precautions in the management of CS include several essential considerations. Firstly, early identification and diagnosis of CS is crucial, as early interventions have been shown to improve survival rates[13]. Therefore, healthcare providers should be vigilant for signs and symptoms of CS, such as hypotension, tachycardia, and decreased urine output. Secondly, revascularization procedures such as PCI and coronary artery bypass grafting are essential in managing CS caused by myocardial infarction[6]. Early revascularization can restore blood flow to the heart muscle and prevent further damage. Thirdly, the use of inotropes and vasopressors should be carefully titrated to avoid complications such as arrhythmias and excessive vasoconstriction[14]. Adequate fluid resuscitation is necessary to maintain blood pressure and cardiac output, but excessive fluid administration can lead to pulmonary edema and worsen CS[14]. Fourthly, mechanical circulatory support devices such as intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (ECMO) may be necessary in refractory cases of CS[15]. However, these devices have risks and complications, such as bleeding and infection, which should be carefully monitored and managed[16]. Finally, closely monitoring hemodynamic parameters such as blood pressure, heart rate, and cardiac output is essential to guide management and assess response to therapy[16]. Patients with CS require close attention and frequent assessments to identify and manage any complications that may arise.
The management of patients with CS undergoing primary PCI has evolved significantly over the last few decades. Despite these advances, the mortality rate in this patient population remains high[17]. There is a need to identify factors associated with poor immediate outcomes after primary PCI in patients with CS to help identify high-risk patients and guide treatment decisions[13]. Understanding the predictors of mortality and other immediate outcomes after primary PCI in patients with CS can also provide valuable insights for further refining the management of these patients. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the immediate mortality rate in patients with CS undergoing primary PCI and identify mortality predictors.
This retrospective analysis was conducted at the largest tertiary care cardiac hospital in Karachi, Pakistan, after approval from the institutional ethical review committee (ERC/46/2022). For this analysis, the de-identified data were extracted from the hospital records for the consecutive patients with CS who underwent primary PCI at our institution between January 2018 and December 2022. Patients with missing information on study variables were excluded from the analysis, and patients who did not undergo primary PCI were also excluded.
The primary outcome was immediate mortality, defined as mortality within index hospitalization. Baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, and procedural data were collected. Data regarding the hospital course of the patients were also extracted, which included IABP placement, intubation, temporary pacemaker, inotropic support, and in-hospital complications such as sepsis, renal dysfunction, cardiac arrest, cerebrovascular accident, hypoxic brain injury, and multi-organ dysfunction.
Data regarding demographics, clinical characteristics, procedural, and hospital course were compared between the two groups of patients based on immediate survival status with the help of an independent sample t-test/Mann-Whitney U test or Chi-square test/Fisher exact test. Univariate and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of immediate mortality. All the variables with P value < 0.20 in the univariate analysis were included in the multivariable analysis[18]. All the statistical analyses were formed with the help of IBM SPSS version 21, and P < 0.05 was the set criteria for statistical significance.
A total of 305 patients were included, of which 222 (72.8%) were male, and the mean age of the study sample was 58.1 ± 11.8 years. Most patients were in Killip class IV, 186 (61.0%), at the time of presentation. The immediate mortality rate was found to be 54.8% (167). The mean age was 59.4 ± 12.0 vs 56.5 ± 11.5; P = 0.031, Killip IV at presentation was 68.3% vs 52.2%; P = 0.004, and diabetes was present in 54.5% vs 41.3%; P = 0.022 among expired and survived patients, respectively (Table 1).
Total | Immediate outcome | P value | ||
Mortality | Survived | |||
Total (n) | 305 | 167 | 138 | |
Gender | ||||
Male | 222 (72.8) | 114 (68.3) | 108 (78.3) | 0.051 |
Female | 83 (27.2) | 53 (31.7) | 30 (21.7) | |
Age (years) | 58.1 ± 11.8 | 59.4 ± 12 | 56.5 ± 11.5 | 0.031 |
Body mass index (kg/m2) | 25.7 ± 2.9 | 25.6 ± 2.9 | 25.9 ± 3 | 0.346 |
Underweight | 2 (0.7) | 2 (1.2) | 0 (0.0) | 0.470 |
Healthy | 150 (49.2) | 84 (50.3) | 66 (47.8) | |
Overweight | 131 (43) | 71 (42.5) | 60 (43.5) | |
Obese | 22 (7.2) | 10 (6) | 12 (8.7) | |
Killip Class | ||||
III | 119 (39) | 53 (31.7) | 66 (47.8) | 0.004 |
IV | 186 (61) | 114 (68.3) | 72 (52.2) | |
Known risk factors | ||||
Diabetes | 148 (48.5) | 91 (54.5) | 57 (41.3) | 0.022 |
Hypertension | 181 (59.3) | 95 (56.9) | 86 (62.3) | 0.336 |
Smoke | 80 (26.2) | 40 (24) | 40 (29) | 0.320 |
Family history | 8 (2.6) | 4 (2.4) | 4 (2.9) | 0.784 |
Dyslipidemia | 7 (2.3) | 4 (2.4) | 3 (2.2) | 0.898 |
Chest pain to ER (min) | 240 (120-360) | 210 (120-360) | 240 (120-360) | 0.718 |
ER to lab time (min) | 55 (39-76) | 55 (35-70.11) | 55 (40-80) | 0.337 |
Total ischemic time (min) | 285 (190-415) | 280 (180-413) | 287 (200-440) | 0.672 |
ST depression in AVR | 56 (18.4) | 33 (19.8) | 23 (16.7) | 0.487 |
The multivessel disease was observed in 90.4% vs 68.1%; P < 0.001, high thrombus burden (grade ≥ 4) in 85.6% vs 67.4%; P < 0.001, bifurcations lesion in 29.9% vs 16.7%; P = 0.007, intraluminal defect in 89.8% vs 81.9%; P = 0.045, need of temporary pacemaker was for 60.5% vs 1.4%; P < 0.001, need of intubation for 78.4% vs 2.2%; P < 0.001, need of inotropic support was 76.0% vs 1.4%; P < 0.001, need of IABP was 48.5% vs 21.7%; P < 0.001, and left ventricular dysfunction was observed in 91.0% vs 75.4%; P < 0.001 among expired and survived patients, respectively (Table 2).
Total | Immediate outcome | P value | ||
Mortality | Survived | |||
Total (n) | 305 | 167 | 138 | |
Number of involved vessels | ||||
Single vessel disease (SVD) | 56 (18.4) | 15 (9) | 41 (29.7) | < 0.001 |
Two vessel disease (2VD) | 80 (26.2) | 43 (25.7) | 37 (26.8) | |
Three vessel disease (3VD) | 145 (47.5) | 100 (59.9) | 45 (32.6) | |
Left main (LM) | 2 (0.7) | 1 (0.6) | 1 (0.7) | |
LM + SVD | 2 (0.7) | 0 (0) | 2 (1.4) | |
LM + 2VD | 7 (2.3) | 2 (1.2) | 5 (3.6) | |
LM + 3VD | 13 (4.3) | 6 (3.6) | 7 (5.1) | |
Infarct related artery | ||||
Left anterior descending artery | 191 (62.6) | 106 (63.5) | 85 (61.6) | 0.917 |
Right coronary artery | 78 (25.6) | 42 (25.1) | 36 (26.1) | |
Left circumflex | 31 (10.2) | 17 (10.2) | 14 (10.1) | |
Left main | 5 (1.6) | 2 (1.2) | 3 (2.2) | |
Only LHC done | 17 (5.6) | 12 (7.2) | 5 (3.6) | 0.177 |
Only POBA | 32 (10.5) | 19 (11.4) | 13 (9.4) | 0.579 |
Lesion length (cm) | 20 (15-26) | 20 (15-26) | 20 (15-26) | 0.948 |
Bifurcations lesion | 73 (23.9) | 50 (29.9) | 23 (16.7) | 0.007 |
Side branch | 57 (18.7) | 37 (22.2) | 20 (14.5) | 0.087 |
Pre-procedure TIMI flow | ||||
0 | 290 (95.1) | 152 (91) | 138 (100) | 0.005 |
I | 8 (2.6) | 8 (4.8) | 0 (0.0) | |
II | 6 (2) | 6 (3.6) | 0 (0.0) | |
III | 1 (0.3) | 1 (0.6) | 0 (0.0) | |
Post-procedure TIMI flow | ||||
0 | 14 (4.6) | 9 (5.4) | 5 (3.6) | 0.124 |
I | 9 (3) | 7 (4.2) | 2 (1.4) | |
II | 39 (12.8) | 26 (15.6) | 13 (9.4) | |
III | 243 (79.7) | 125 (74.9) | 118 (85.5) | |
Tissue Myocardial Perfusion | ||||
0 | 20 (6.6) | 10 (6) | 10 (7.2) | 0.731 |
I | 18 (5.9) | 11 (6.6) | 7 (5.1) | |
II | 62 (20.3) | 37 (22.2) | 25 (18.1) | |
III | 205 (67.2) | 109 (65.3) | 96 (69.6) | |
Thrombus grading | ||||
G0-No | 8 (2.6) | 2 (1.2) | 6 (4.3) | 0.003 |
G1-Possible | 14 (4.6) | 7 (4.2) | 7 (5.1) | |
G2-Small | 8 (2.6) | 1 (0.6) | 7 (5.1) | |
G3-Moderate | 39 (12.8) | 14 (8.4) | 25 (18.1) | |
G4-Large | 55 (18) | 32 (19.2) | 23 (16.7) | |
G5-Total | 181 (59.3) | 111 (66.5) | 70 (50.7) | |
Intraluminal defect | 263 (86.2) | 150 (89.8) | 113 (81.9) | 0.045 |
Export catheter use | 138 (45.2) | 62 (37.1) | 76 (55.1) | 0.002 |
Needed temporary pacemaker | 103 (33.8) | 101 (60.5) | 2 (1.4) | < 0.001 |
ER | 8 (7.8) | 8 (7.9) | 0 (0.0) | 0.806 |
Cath lab | 85 (82.5) | 83 (82.2) | 2 (100) | |
CCU | 10 (9.7) | 10 (9.9) | 0 (0) | |
Needed intubation | 134 (43.9) | 131 (78.4) | 3 (2.2) | < 0.001 |
ER | 30 (22.4) | 30 (22.9) | 0 (0) | 0.397 |
Cath lab | 60 (44.8) | 59 (45) | 1 (33.3) | |
CCU | 44 (32.8) | 42 (32.1) | 2 (66.7) | |
Needed inotropic support | 129 (42.3) | 127 (76) | 2 (1.4) | < 0.001 |
ER | 74 (57.4) | 74 (58.3) | 0 (0.0) | 0.065 |
Cath lab | 35 (27.1) | 33 (26) | 2 (100) | |
CCU | 20 (15.5) | 20 (15.7) | 0 (0.0) | |
Needed IABP | 111 (36.4) | 81 (48.5) | 30 (21.7) | < 0.001 |
LV dysfunction | 256 (83.9) | 152 (91) | 104 (75.4) | < 0.001 |
Ejection fraction (%) | 30 (30-40) | 30 (30-40) | 35 (30-45) | 0.014 |
Multivariate analysis identified Killip class IV at presentation [odds ratio (OR): 2.0; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2-3.4; P = 0.008], Multivessel disease (OR: 3.5; 95%CI: 1.8-6.9; P < 0.001), and high thrombus burden (OR: 2.6; 95%CI: 1.4-4.9; P = 0.003) as independent predictors of immediate mortality (Table 3).
Univariate | Multivariable | |||
OR (95%CI) | P value | OR (95%CI) | P value | |
Female | 1.7 (1.0-2.8) | 0.052 | 1.8 (1.0-3.3) | 0.059 |
Age (years) | 1.0 (1.0-1.0) | 0.032 | 1.0 (1.0-1.0) | 0.257 |
Killip class IV | 2.0 (1.2-3.1) | 0.004 | 2.0 (1.2-3.4) | 0.008 |
Diabetes mellitus | 1.7 (1.1-2.7) | 0.022 | 1.5 (0.9-2.5) | 0.126 |
Hypertension | 0.8 (0.5-1.3) | 0.337 | - | - |
Smoker | 0.8 (0.5-1.3) | 0.320 | - | - |
Total ischemic time ≥ 4 h | 1.0 (0.6-1.7) | 0.870 | - | - |
Multivessel disease | 4.4 (2.4-8.3) | < 0.001 | 3.5 (1.8-6.9) | < 0.001 |
Bifurcations lesion | 2.1 (1.2-3.7) | 0.008 | 1.7 (0.8-3.5) | 0.169 |
Side branch | 1.7 (0.9-3.1) | 0.090 | 0.9 (0.4-2.1) | 0.839 |
Thrombus grade ≥ 4 | 2.9 (1.6-5.0) | < 0.001 | 2.6 (1.4-4.9) | 0.003 |
Intraluminal defect | 2.0 (1.0-3.8) | 0.048 | 1.2 (0.6-2.6) | 0.655 |
Left ventricular dysfunction | 3.3 (1.7-6.4) | < 0.001 | 2.2 (0.8-6.3) | 0.146 |
Ejection fraction (%) | 1.0 (0.9-1.0) | 0.002 | 1.0 (1.0-1.0) | 0.542 |
A 12.0% (20/167) of the total deaths were deaths on the catheterization table. Cardiac arrest was the most common cause of death observed in 95.8% (160/167). Among other causes, renal failure was observed in 25.1% (42/167), multi-organ dysfunction in 19.8% (33/167), sepsis in 18.0% (30/167), hypoxic brain injury in 6.6% (11/167), and cerebrovascular accident in 0.6% (1/167) patient.
CS is a severe complication of AMI associated with low blood pressure, poor organ perfusion, and high mortality rates. Overall, primary PCI plays a crucial role in managing patients with CS by improving blood flow to the heart, restoring cardiac function, and reducing mortality rates. However, the success of primary PCI depends on several factors, including the timeliness of treatment, the skill and experience of the operators performing the procedure, and the patient's overall health status. Therefore, it is essential to identify high-risk patients and provide timely and appropriate treatment to achieve the best outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective analysis of 305 patients with CS-complicated AMI who had undergone primary PCI at our center. It has been observed the immediate mortality rate was unacceptably high at 54.8%, with cardiac arrest followed by renal failure, multi-organ dysfunction, sepsis, hypoxic brain injury, and cerebrovascular accident as a cause of mortality. In multivariable analysis, Killip class IV at presentation, multivessel disease, and high thrombus burden (grade ≥ 4) were identified as independent predictors of immediate mortality.
Despite advancements in the therapeutic and technical management of CS, the rate of adverse events remains unacceptably high. Studies have reported varying mortality rates in-hospital, short-term, and long-term depending on the definition of CS and follow-up duration. Similar to our study, Hayıroğlu et al[5] surveyed 319 CS complicated ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients treated with primary PCI and reported a high in-hospital mortality rate of 61.3%. This study found several predictors of in-hospital mortality, including final thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow, chronic kidney disease, left ventricular ejection fraction, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, blood urea nitrogen level, lactate level, and plasma glucose level. Similarly, other studies, including Wang et al[19] and Backhaus et al[13], reported 65.3% and 37%-50% in-hospital mortality rates, respectively. The use of IABP has decreased over the years, and improvements in therapeutic management, such as increased use of drug-eluting stents, prasugrel, and ticagrelor, have resulted in better long-term prognosis for these patients[13]. Kawaji et al[20] conducted a registry-based study on 466 STEMI patients with CS and reported high 30-d, one-year, and five-year mortality rates of 25.4%, 38.7%, and 51.4%, respectively.
Additionally, the identification of clinical predictors of mortality can help guide treatment decisions and improve patient outcomes. Our study identified Killip class IV at presentation, multivessel disease, and high thrombus burden (grade ≥ 4) as independent predictors of immediate mortality. Several clinical predictors of mortality in patients with CS have been identified in the literature, including age: Advanced age is a significant predictor of mortality in patients with CS[21]. Older patients have more comorbidities and are at higher risk of complications. The severity of shock: The degree of hemodynamic compromise, measured by the cardiac index, central venous pressure, and mean arterial pressure, is strongly associated with mortality[21]. AKI: AKI is a common complication in patients with CS and is associated with increased mortality[8]. Delayed revascularization: Delayed revascularization, defined as a time to revascularization of more than 24 h, is associated with increased mortality in patients with CS due to myocardial infarction[22]. Elevated lactate levels: Elevated lactate levels indicate tissue hypoxia and are a marker of poor prognosis in patients with CS[23]. Presence of comorbidities: Patients with preexisting comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease have a higher risk of mortality[24]. Use of mechanical circulatory support: Mechanical circulatory support devices such as IABP and ECMO are associated with increased mortality, likely due to the severity of illness in patients requiring these interventions[25].
Further research is necessary to oversee and manage patients with STEMI complicated by CS. To achieve this, some researchers have proposed risk stratification scoring systems that have demonstrated good predictive value for the risk stratification of 30-d mortality[19,26,27]. Along with reperfusions, multidisciplinary management of CS patients is mandatory to improve outcomes. Several studies have reported a significant increase in the incidence of CS complicating STEMI, with one study reporting an incidence of 9% in 2006, which rose to 16% over ten years[13]. Similarly, an analysis of a United States nationwide database found that the incidence of STEMI complicated by CS increased from 6.5% to 10.1% between 2003 and 2010[28]. As a result, targeted research efforts are required to improve outcomes for these high-risk patients. While emergency revascularization of the culprit artery is the only proven effective method thus far, evidence for other supportive and medical therapies is unsatisfactory, and the use of IABP has shown no clinical benefit; however, the use of ECMO and Impella may yield better outcomes[29].
Certain limitations of the study need to be acknowledged. It was a single center-based retrospective study with a relatively small sample; hence, the generalizability of study findings may be limited.
In conclusion, immediate mortality rates in patients with CS undergoing primary PCI remain high despite advances in treatment strategies. Killip class IV at presentation, multivessel disease, and high thrombus burden (grade ≥ 4) were identified as independent predictors of immediate mortality. Such predictors can help guide treatment decisions and risk stratification in patients with CS. These findings underscore the need for aggressive management and close monitoring of patients with CS undergoing primary PCI, particularly those with these high-risk characteristics.
Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening complication of acute myocardial infarction with high morbidity and mortality rates.
The management of CS requires a multidisciplinary approach involving cardiology, critical care, and interventional teams. Early identification and diagnosis of CS is crucial, as early interventions have been shown to improve survival rates.
This study aimed to investigate the immediate mortality rates in patients with CS undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and identify mortality predictors.
We conducted a retrospective analysis of 305 patients with CS who underwent primary PCI and immediate mortality rate was analyzed.
In a sample of 305 patients, the immediate mortality rate was found to be 54.8% with Killip class IV at presentation, multivessel disease, and high thrombus burden as independent predictors of immediate mortality.
Immediate mortality rate in patients with CS undergoing primary PCI remains high despite advances in treatment strategies. Killip class IV at presentation, multivessel disease, and high thrombus burden (grade ≥ 4) were identified as independent predictors of immediate mortality.
These findings underscore the need for aggressive management and close monitoring of patients with CS undergoing primary PCI, particularly in those with these high-risk characteristics.
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the staff members of the Clinical Research Department of the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases (NICVD) Karachi, Pakistan.
Provenance and peer review: Unsolicited article; Externally peer reviewed.
Peer-review model: Single blind
Specialty type: Cardiac and cardiovascular systems
Country/Territory of origin: Pakistan
Peer-review report’s scientific quality classification
Grade A (Excellent): 0
Grade B (Very good): B
Grade C (Good): C, C
Grade D (Fair): D
Grade E (Poor): 0
P-Reviewer: He Z, China; Tan X, China S-Editor: Fan JR L-Editor: A P-Editor: Fan JR
1. | Salari N, Morddarvanjoghi F, Abdolmaleki A, Rasoulpoor S, Khaleghi AA, Hezarkhani LA, Shohaimi S, Mohammadi M. The global prevalence of myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2023;23:206. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 85] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
2. | Elgendy IY, Van Spall HGC, Mamas MA. Cardiogenic Shock in the Setting of Acute Myocardial Infarction: History Repeating Itself? Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:e009034. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 7] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9] [Article Influence: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
3. | Berg DD, Bohula EA, Morrow DA. Epidemiology and causes of cardiogenic shock. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2021;27:401-408. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 8] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 38] [Article Influence: 12.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
4. | Thiele H, Ohman EM, de Waha-Thiele S, Zeymer U, Desch S. Management of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: an update 2019. Eur Heart J. 2019;40:2671-2683. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 222] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 234] [Article Influence: 46.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
5. | Hayıroğlu Mİ, Keskin M, Uzun AO, Yıldırım Dİ, Kaya A, Çinier G, Bozbeyoğlu E, Yıldırımtürk Ö, Kozan Ö, Pehlivanoğlu S. Predictors of In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Complicated With Cardiogenic Shock. Heart Lung Circ. 2019;28:237-244. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 31] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 61] [Article Influence: 8.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
6. | Wayangankar SA, Bangalore S, McCoy LA, Jneid H, Latif F, Karrowni W, Charitakis K, Feldman DN, Dakik HA, Mauri L, Peterson ED, Messenger J, Roe M, Mukherjee D, Klein A. Temporal Trends and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Cardiogenic Shock in the Setting of Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Report From the CathPCI Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:341-351. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 149] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 193] [Article Influence: 24.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
7. | Shah AH, Puri R, Kalra A. Management of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: A review. Clin Cardiol. 2019;42:484-493. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 24] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 29] [Article Influence: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
8. | Singh S, Kanwar A, Sundaragiri PR, Cheungpasitporn W, Truesdell AG, Rab ST, Singh M, Vallabhajosyula S. Acute Kidney Injury in Cardiogenic Shock: An Updated Narrative Review. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2021;8. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
9. | Vallabhajosyula S, Patlolla SH, Verghese D, Ya'Qoub L, Kumar V, Subramaniam AV, Cheungpasitporn W, Sundaragiri PR, Noseworthy PA, Mulpuru SK, Bell MR, Gersh BJ, Deshmukh AJ. Burden of Arrhythmias in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock. Am J Cardiol. 2020;125:1774-1781. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 23] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 35] [Article Influence: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
10. | Takahashi K, Kubo S, Ikuta A, Osakada K, Takamatsu M, Taguchi Y, Ohya M, Shimada T, Miura K, Tada T, Tanaka H, Fuku Y, Kadota K. Incidence, predictors, and clinical outcomes of mechanical circulatory support-related complications in patients with cardiogenic shock. J Cardiol. 2022;79:163-169. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 2] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10] [Article Influence: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
11. | Pahuja M, Ranka S, Chehab O, Mishra T, Akintoye E, Adegbala O, Yassin AS, Ando T, Thayer KL, Shah P, Kimmelstiel CD, Salehi P, Kapur NK. Incidence and clinical outcomes of bleeding complications and acute limb ischemia in STEMI and cardiogenic shock. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;97:1129-1138. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 12] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 30] [Article Influence: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
12. | Chehab O, Morsi RZ, Kanj A, Rachwan RJ, Pahuja M, Mansour S, Tabaja H, Ahmad U, Zein SE, Raad M, Saker A, Alvarez P, Briasoulis A. Incidence and clinical outcomes of nosocomial infections in patients presenting with STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock in the United States. Heart Lung. 2020;49:716-723. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3] [Article Influence: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
13. | Backhaus T, Fach A, Schmucker J, Fiehn E, Garstka D, Stehmeier J, Hambrecht R, Wienbergen H. Management and predictors of outcome in unselected patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results from the Bremen STEMI Registry. Clin Res Cardiol. 2018;107:371-379. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 48] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 39] [Article Influence: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
14. | Levy B, Buzon J, Kimmoun A. Inotropes and vasopressors use in cardiogenic shock: when, which and how much? Curr Opin Crit Care. 2019;25:384-390. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 27] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 35] [Article Influence: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
15. | Huang CC, Hsu JC, Wu YW, Ke SR, Huang JH, Chiu KM, Liao PC. Implementation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation before primary percutaneous coronary intervention may improve the survival of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and refractory cardiogenic shock. Int J Cardiol. 2018;269:45-50. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 21] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 22] [Article Influence: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
16. | Saxena A, Garan AR, Kapur NK, O'Neill WW, Lindenfeld J, Pinney SP, Uriel N, Burkhoff D, Kern M. Value of Hemodynamic Monitoring in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support. Circulation. 2020;141:1184-1197. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 70] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 72] [Article Influence: 18.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
17. | Alba AC, Foroutan F, Buchan TA, Alvarez J, Kinsella A, Clark K, Zhu A, Lau K, McGuinty C, Aleksova N, Francis T, Stanimirovic A, Vishram-Nielsen J, Malik A, Ross HJ, Fan E, Rac VE, Rao V, Billia F. Mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock supported with VA ECMO: A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the impact of etiology on 29,289 patients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2021;40:260-268. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 11] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11] [Article Influence: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
18. | Bursac Z, Gauss CH, Williams DK, Hosmer DW. Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source Code Biol Med. 2008;3:17. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1772] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2324] [Article Influence: 145.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
19. | Wang Y, Liu L, Li X, Dang Y, Li Y, Wang J, Qi X. Nomogram for Predicting In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock after Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. J Interv Cardiol. 2022;2022:8994106. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
20. | Kawaji T, Shiomi H, Morimoto T, Furukawa Y, Nakagawa Y, Kadota K, Ando K, Mizoguchi T, Abe M, Takahashi M, Kimura T; CREDO-Kyoto AMI investigators. Long-term clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock due to acute pump failure. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2018;7:743-754. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 15] [Article Influence: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
21. | Jentzer JC, Schrage B, Holmes DR, Dabboura S, Anavekar NS, Kirchhof P, Barsness GW, Blankenberg S, Bell MR, Westermann D. Influence of age and shock severity on short-term survival in patients with cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2021;10:604-612. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 19] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 50] [Article Influence: 16.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
22. | Kochar A, Al-Khalidi HR, Hansen SM, Shavadia JS, Roettig ML, Fordyce CB, Doerfler S, Gersh BJ, Henry TD, Berger PB, Jollis JG, Granger CB. Delays in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients Presenting With Cardiogenic Shock. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:1824-1833. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 30] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 23] [Article Influence: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
23. | Lindholm MG, Hongisto M, Lassus J, Spinar J, Parissis J, Banaszewski M, Silva-Cardoso J, Carubelli V, Salvatore D, Sionis A, Mebazaa A, Veli-Pekka H, Kober L. Serum Lactate and A Relative Change in Lactate as Predictors of Mortality in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - Results from the Cardshock Study. Shock. 2020;53:43-49. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 9] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9] [Article Influence: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
24. | Echouffo-Tcheugui JB, Kolte D, Khera S, Aronow HD, Abbott JD, Bhatt DL, Fonarow GC. Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction. Am J Med. 2018;131:778-786.e1. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 13] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 15] [Article Influence: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
25. | Yang JH, Choi KH, Ko YG, Ahn CM, Yu CW, Chun WJ, Jang WJ, Kim HJ, Kim BS, Bae JW, Lee SY, Kwon SU, Lee HJ, Lee WS, Jeong JO, Park SD, Lim SH, Cho S, Park TK, Lee JM, Song YB, Hahn JY, Choi SH, Gwon HC. Clinical Characteristics and Predictors of In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: Results From the RESCUE Registry. Circ Heart Fail. 2021;14:e008141. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 26] [Article Influence: 8.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
26. | Pöss J, Köster J, Fuernau G, Eitel I, de Waha S, Ouarrak T, Lassus J, Harjola VP, Zeymer U, Thiele H, Desch S. Risk Stratification for Patients in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:1913-1920. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 206] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 169] [Article Influence: 24.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
27. | Katz JN, Stebbins AL, Alexander JH, Reynolds HR, Pieper KS, Ruzyllo W, Werdan K, Geppert A, Dzavik V, Van de Werf F, Hochman JS; TRIUMPH Investigators. Predictors of 30-day mortality in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction despite a patent infarct artery. Am Heart J. 2009;158:680-687. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 76] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 80] [Article Influence: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
28. | Kolte D, Khera S, Aronow WS, Mujib M, Palaniswamy C, Sule S, Jain D, Gotsis W, Ahmed A, Frishman WH, Fonarow GC. Trends in incidence, management, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock complicating ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the United States. J Am Heart Assoc. 2014;3:e000590. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 312] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 424] [Article Influence: 42.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
29. | El Nasasra A, Zeymer U. Current clinical management of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2021;19:41-46. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |