Survivors of Myocardial Infarction with Cardiogenic Shock: Long Term Outcomes.

Título original: Post-Hospital Outcomes of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock Findings From the NCDR. Referencia: Rashmee U. Shah et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(7):739-747.

 

Even though mortality after cardiogenic shock MI is quite high, many survive and are discharged. So far, there is little we know about their prognosis after discharge.

This study sought to assess patients undergoing acute myocardial infarction included in the ACTION registry (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry–Get with the Guidelines) post discharge. The study used proportional hazard models to test the association between cardiogenic shock and events after discharge.

Out of 112668 AMI survivors discharged, 5% presented cardiogenic shock.

Death rate was significantly higher in those presenting cardiogenic shock both at 60 days (9.6% vs. 5.5%) and one year (22.4% vs. 16.7%).

After adjusting baseline characteristics, death risk continued to be higher in those presenting cardiogenic shock within 60 days (HR: 1.62; CI 95% 1.46 to 1.80) but resulted similar after this period (HR: 1.08 between day 61 and 365; CI 95% 1.00 to 1.18).

All cause rehospitalization or death rates also resulted higher in cardiogenic shock patients at 60 days (HR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.21 to 1.35) and after this period the risk matched non cardiogenic shock patients (HR: 0.95 between day 61 and 365; CI 95% 0.89 to 1.01).

Conclusion
For cardiogenic shock survivors, death and or rehospitalization rates are time dependent and concentrates in the first 60 days after discharge. After this period, prognosis resulted similar to that of patients with no cardiogenic shock.

More articles by this author

ACC 2026 | DKCRUSH VIII: IVUS or angiography to guide PCI in complex coronary bifurcations

Intracoronary imaging guidance has become an established recommended strategy in complex coronary lesions. In the specific setting of complex bifurcations, uncertainty remained regarding the...

ACC 2026 | OPTIMAL: IVUS Guidance in PCI of the Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is considered an equivalent alternative to coronary artery bypass surgery in patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis and...

ACC 2026 | IVUS-CHIP Trial: Intravascular ultrasound–guided versus angiography-guided complex PCI

Optimization of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in complex lesions remains a relevant clinical challenge. In this context, the IVUS-CHIP trial was designed to evaluate...

ACC 2026 | ALL-RISE Trial: Coronary Physiological Assessment Using FFRangio

Coronary physiological assessment using pressure-wire techniques (FFR/iFR) carries a Class IA recommendation in ACC/AHA guidelines; however, its use remains limited due to factors such...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

Therapeutic strategies in carotid free-floating thrombus: evidence and controversies

Carotid free-floating thrombus (cFFT) is a rare entity with a high embolic risk, associated with acute neurological events such as stroke or transient ischemic...

The Two Sides of the Coin: What Do CHAMPION-AF and CLOSURE-AF Teach Us About Left Atrial Appendage Closure?

Letter to the editor: Juan Manuel Pérez Asorey Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAO) is currently going through one of the most interesting stages of...

CLOSURE-AF: Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure versus Medical Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure has been proposed as an alternative to anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation and high bleeding risk; however, comparative...