Dataset Information

Coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with high mortality. Early coronary revascularization improves survival, but the optimal mode of revascularization remains uncertain. We sought to characterize practice patterns and outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with MI complicated by CS.

Methods

Patients hospitalized for MI with CS between 2002 and 2014 were identified from the United States National Inpatient Sample. Trends in management were evaluated over time. Propensity score matching was performed to identify cohorts with similar baseline characteristics and MI presentations who underwent PCI and CABG. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality.

Results

A total of 386,811 hospitalizations for MI with CS were identified; 67% were STEMI. Overall, 62.4% of patients underwent revascularization, with PCI in 44.9%, CABG in 14.1%, and a hybrid approach in 3.4%. Coronary revascularization for MI and CS increased over time, from 51.5% in 2002 to 67.4% in 2014 (P for trend < .001). Patients who underwent CABG were more likely to have diabetes mellitus (35.5% vs. 29.2%, P < .001) and less likely to present with STEMI (48.7% vs. 80.9%, P < .001) than those who underwent PCI. CABG (without PCI) was associated with lower mortality than PCI (without CABG) overall (18.9% vs. 29.0%, P < .001) and in a propensity-matched subgroup of 19,882 patients (19.0% vs. 27.0%, P < .001).

Conclusions

CABG was associated with lower in-hospital mortality than PCI among patients with MI complicated by CS. Due to the likelihood of residual confounding, a randomized trial of PCI versus CABG in patients with MI, CS, and multi-vessel coronary disease is warranted.

SUBMITTER: Smilowitz NR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7442583 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThere are limited contemporary data on the use of initial fibrinolysis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS). This study sought to compare the outcomes of STEMI-CS receiving initial fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).MethodsUsing the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample from 2009 to 2017, a comparative effectiveness study of adult (>18 years) STEMI-CS admissions receiving pre-hospital/in-hospital fibrinolysis were compared with those receiving PPCI. Admissions with alternate indications for fibrinolysis and STEMI-CS managed medically or with surgical revascularization (without fibrinolysis) were excluded. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, development of non-cardiac organ failure, complications, hospital length of stay, hospitalization costs, use of palliative care, and do-not-resuscitate status.ResultsDuring 2009-2017, 5297 and 110 452 admissions received initial fibrinolysis and PPCI, respectively. Compared with those receiving PPCI, the fibrinolysis group was more often non-White, with lower co-morbidity, and admitted on weekends and to small rural hospitals (all P < 0.001). In the fibrinolysis group, 95.3%, 77.4%, and 15.7% received angiography, PCI, and coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively. The fibrinolysis group had higher rates of haemorrhagic complications (13.5% vs. 9.9%; P < 0.001). The fibrinolysis group had comparable all-cause in-hospital mortality [logistic regression analysis: 28.8% vs. 28.5%; propensity-matched analysis: 30.8% vs. 30.3%; adjusted odds ratio 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.90-1.05); P = 0.50]. The fibrinolysis group had comparable rates of acute organ failure, hospital length of stay, rates of palliative care referrals, do-not-resuscitate status use, and lesser hospitalization costs.ConclusionsThe use of initial fibrinolysis had comparable in-hospital mortality than those receiving PPCI in STEMI-CS in the contemporary era in this large national observational study.