Dataset Information

A case report: unmasking a singular culprit for cardiogenic shock: looking beyond the coronary tree.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cardiogenic shock remains challenging in its therapy and aetiology.

Case summary

A 74-year-old woman admitted for cardiogenic shock requiring mechanical ventilation and high-dose inotropics and vasopressors with an electrocardiogram showing left ventricular (LV) lateral wall ischaemia had diffuse coronary artery disease but TIMI III flow in the coronary tree. An echocardiogram showed a suspicious mass invading the left ventricle and computed tomography scan revealed an advanced lung cancer with LV wall and pulmonary artery invasion as the cardiogenic shock cause.

Discussion

When managing cardiogenic shock, it is important to consider different and not obvious diagnosis. A high level of clinical suspicion and multimodality imaging assessment was very important in the present case to attain the diagnosis.

SUBMITTER: Almeida-Morais L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6601217 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A case report: unmasking a singular culprit for cardiogenic shock: looking beyond the coronary tree.

Almeida-Morais Luís L Portugal Guilherme G Cruz-Ferreira Rui R

European heart journal. Case reports 20190601 2

<h4>Background</h4>Cardiogenic shock remains challenging in its therapy and aetiology.<h4>Case summary</h4>A 74-year-old woman admitted for cardiogenic shock requiring mechanical ventilation and high-dose inotropics and vasopressors with an electrocardiogram showing left ventricular (LV) lateral wall ischaemia had diffuse coronary artery disease but TIMI III flow in the coronary tree. An echocardiogram showed a suspicious mass invading the left ventricle and computed tomography scan revealed an ...[more]

PMID: 31449590

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMyocardial infarction with a culprit lesion located in the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery compared with other coronary segments is associated with more myocardium at risk and worse clinical outcomes.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of culprit lesion location with outcomes of culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention with optional staged revascularization vs immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel disease, myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock.Design, setting, and participantsPost hoc analysis of the Culprit Lesion Only Coronary Intervention vs Multivessel Coronary Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock (CULPRIT-SHOCK), an investigator-initiated randomized, open-label clinical trial. Patients with multivessel disease, acute myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock were enrolled at 83 European centers from April 2013 through April 2017.InterventionsPatients were randomized to culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention with optional staged revascularization or immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (1:1). For this analysis, patients were stratified by culprit lesion location in the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery group and other-culprit-lesion location group.Main outcomes and measuresEnd points included a composite of death or kidney replacement therapy at 30 days and death at 1 year.ResultsThe median age of the study population was 70 (interquartile range, 60-78 years) and 524 of the study participants were men (76.4%). Of the 685 patients, 33.4% constituted the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery group and 66.6% the other-culprit-lesion location group. The left main or proximal left anterior descending artery group had worse outcomes compared with the other-culprit-lesion location group (56.8% vs 47.5%; P = .02 for the composite end point at 30 days and 59.8% vs 50.1%; P = .02 for death at 1 year). In both groups, culprit-lesion-only vs immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a reduced risk of the composite end point at 30 days (49.1% vs 64.3% and 44.1% vs 50.9%; P for interaction = .27). At 1 year, culprit-lesion-only vs immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a significantly reduced risk of death in the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery but not the other-culprit-lesion location group (50.0% vs 69.6%; P = .003 and 49.8% vs 50.4%; P = .89; P for interaction = 0.02).Conclusions and relevanceIn patients with multivessel disease with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock, a culprit lesion located in the left main or proximal left anterior descending artery vs other coronary segments was associated with worse outcomes. These patients may especially benefit from culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention with optional staged revascularization, although further investigation is needed to confirm this finding.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01927549.

Project description:IntroductionEmergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion for patients with acute myocardial infarctions is an accepted practice. A majority of patients present with multivessel disease with additional relevant stenoses apart from the culprit lesion. In haemodynamically stable patients, there is increasing evidence from randomised trials to support the practice of immediate complete revascularisation. However, in the presence of cardiogenic shock, the optimal management strategy for additional non-culprit lesions is unknown. A multicentre randomised controlled trial, CULPRIT-SHOCK, is examining whether culprit vessel only PCI with potentially subsequent staged revascularisation is more effective than immediate multivessel PCI. This paper describes the intended economic evaluation of the trial.Methods and analysisThe economic evaluation will be conducted using a pre-trial decision model and within-trial analysis. The modelling-based analysis will provide expected costs and health outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over the lifetime for the cohort of patients included in the trial. The within-trial analysis will provide estimates of cost per life saved at 30 days and in 1 year, and estimates of health-related quality of life. Bootstrapping and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will be used to address any uncertainty around these estimates. Different types of regression models within a generalised estimating equation framework will be used to examine how the total cost and quality-adjusted life years are explained by patients' characteristics, revascularisation strategy, country and centre. The cost-effectiveness analysis will be from the perspective of each country's national health services, where costs will be expressed in euros adjusted for purchasing power parity.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the study was granted by the local Ethics Committee at each recruiting centre. The economic evaluation analyses will be published in peer-reviewed journals of the concerned literature and communicated through the profiles of the authors at www.twitter.com and www.researchgate.net.Trial registration numberNCT01927549; Pre-results.

Dataset Information

A case report: unmasking a singular culprit for cardiogenic shock: looking beyond the coronary tree.

Background

Case summary

Discussion

Publications

A case report: unmasking a singular culprit for cardiogenic shock: looking beyond the coronary tree.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets