Upload
grace-norris
View
231
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
How to do Primary Angioplasty
- Patients with Cardiogenic Shock
Advanced Cardiovascular Intervention 2011
Dan Blackman
Leeds General Infirmary
MY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ARE:
Research GrantsMedicines Company
Advisory BoardMedicines CompanyLilly
Causes of Cardiogenic Shock
Predominant LV Failure
74.5%
Acute Severe MR
8.3%
VSD
4.6%
Isolated RV Shock
3.4%
Tamponade/rupture
1.7%Other
7.5%
Shock Registry
JACC 2000 35:1063
Survival from mechanical causes
94%
71%
47%
39%
28%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
VSD Acute Severe MR
In-h
ospi
tal M
orta
lity
(%)
No SurgerySurgeryPercutaneous closure
Shock Registry JACC 2000;36:1104 & 36: 1110
GUSTO 1 Circulation 2000;101:27
Holzer R CCI 2004;61:196
Emergency revascularisation - SHOCK Trial
47%50%
53%
67%
56%
63%66%
80%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
30 days(n=302)
6 months(n=301)
12 months(n=299)
6 years
Mort
ality
(%
)
ERVIMS
85% of survivors NYHA Class I/II at 12 months
Hochman JAMA 2000;285:190
p=0.11p=0.03
p=0.03p=0.02
Single or Multi-vessel PCI?
• 81% of PCI patients multi-vessel disease
• 85% PCI IRA only; 23% complete revascularisation
80%
39%
46%45%50%
54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
1-y
ear
mort
alit
y (%
)
MV PCI SV PCI Complete Partial
p=NS
p<0.01
MV PCI SV PCI
Shock Trial Shock Registry
p=NS
Role of CABG
48%46%
53%
24%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
SHOCK Trial SHOCK Registry
1-y
ear
mort
ality
(%
)
PCICABG
p=NS
• SHOCK Trial CABG vs PCI baseline characteristics– LMS Disease 41% vs 13% p=0.051– 3VD 80% vs 60% p=0.18– Diabetes 49% vs 27% p=0.11
n=47n=81 n=276 n=109
AHA/ACC Guidelines for Revascularisation
PCI Strategy in Cardiogenic Shock
• Stabilise the patient first, open the vessel second
• Up-front IABP• Central venous access• Inotropic/Pressor support as required• Anaesthetic support in the cath lab
De Backer, NEJM, 2010;362:779.
• 1679 patient RCT in shock
• 280 patients cardiogenic
• Increased arrythmia with dopamine (AF/VT/VF)
• Significantly lower mortality with norepinephrine in CS
• Vasoconstriction (by SVR) is often absent* • Patients with vasoconstriction have better outcome*
SOAP II – Comparison of Dopamine and Norepinephrine in Shock
Antmen, JACC, 2004;44:671
Abciximab in Cardiogenic Shock
44%
36%
62%
44%
21%22%
26%
39%
22%
9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Antoniucci(stent)
Chan Stent Chan PTCA Giri (50% stent)
ADMIRAL (stent)
30 d
ay M
ort
alit
y (%
)
PCIPCI +Abciximab
n=77n=41 n=55
n=113n=25
PRAGUE-7 study• 80 patient RCT• Up-front (n=40) vs provisional (n=40) abciximab in PPCI for
cardiogenic shock
100%
37%42%
10%
35%32%
27%
5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Abciximab given Mortality MACE TIMI Major Bleeding
Eve
nt
rate
(%
)
Up-frontProvisonal
P=NS for all
Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation
63
69
43
59
68
4749
34
45
23
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Shock Registry(n=292)
NRMI Registry(n=23,180)
TACTICS GUSTO I & III Kovack (n=46)
Mor
talit
y (%
)
TT onlyTT + IABP
IABP in Cardiogenic Shock Primary PCI
67
49
42
46
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Thrombolysis only Thrombolysis + IABP Primary PCI only Primary PCI + IABP
In-h
osp
ital M
ort
ality
(%
)Retrospective analysis of 23,180 patients from NRMI database
7268 treated by IABP
Timing of IABP in Cardiogenic Shock Primary PCI
15%13%
15%
35%
30%
35%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
CPR VF/ VT arrest Any event
Eve
nt
rate
(%
)
IABP pre (n=62)IABP post/ none (n=57)
• Single centre registry Primary PCI for shock
Brodie AJC 1999;84:18
Tandem Heart pLVAD• Left atrial-to-femoral arterial LVAD• Low speed centrifugal continuous
flow pump• 21F venous transeptal cannula• 17F arterial cannula• Maximum flow 4L/minute• Expensive +++
Tandem Heart Outcome Data
42%
47%45%
36%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Thiele (n=41) Burkhoff (n=33)
30 d
ay m
ort
alit
y (%
)Tandem HeartIABP
Improved haemodynamic parameters
Increase in bleeding, limb ischaemia, and sepsis
Thiele EHJ 2005;26:1276. Burkhoff AHJ 2006;152:e1
p=NS
Impella• Axial flow pump• Much simpler to use• Increases cardiac output & unloads LV• LP 2.5
– 12 F percutaneous approach; Maximum 2.5 L flow
• LP 5.0– 21 F surgical cutdown; Maximum 5L flow
• Expensive ++
Pressure Lumen
Motor
Blood outlet
Blood Inlet
Impella outcome data
• ISAR-SHOCK– 26 patient RCT Impella vs IABP Cardiac Index, MAP (by 10mmHg) vs IABP– Complications ≤ IABP– No difference in mortality
• PROTECT-II– 654 patients RCT IABP vs Impella in high-risk PCI– Stopped after n= 305 due to futility– Primary EP composite of 10 MAEs– Incidence 38% Impella vs 43% IABP
How to treat STEMI + Cardiogenic Shock
• Emergency angiography and revascularisation
• On-table echo to rule out mechanical defects
• Stabilise the patient in the lab before revascularisation
– IABP
– Central venous access
– Pressors if required – Norepinephrine (dopamine)
– Anaesthetic support
• Consider calling the surgeon for true surgical disease
• PCI culprit artery. Consider other vessels if shock persists. Staged
PCI or CABG if patient stabilises
• Consider percutaneous VAD if shock persists with IABP +
effective revascularisation
ESC Guidelines for Cardiogenic Shock
Revascularisation: SHOCK trial
Primary endpoint: 30 day mortality Secondary endpoint: 6 and 12 month mortality
PCI = 81 and CABG = 47
Late follow-up
Heart Attack: The Challlenge, Manchester 2010 Shock: Incidence, Diagnosis, Treatment, Outcome
NYHA I-II
NYHA III-IV
Death
Sleeper, JACC, 2005; 46:266.
Emergency revascularisation in the Elderly- SHOCK Trial
41%
75%
57%53%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
<75 years (n=246) >75 years (n=56)
30-d
ay M
ort
ality
(%
)ERVIMS
• >75 years ERV vs IMS baseline characteristics– LVEF 28% vs 36% p=0.051– Anterior MI 63% vs 41% p=0.18– Female 54% vs 31% p=0.11
p=0.01
p=0.01
Elderly - SHOCK & other registry data
48% 47% 46%
81%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
SHOCK Registry Mayo Clinic Northern NewEngland
30-d
ay M
ort
ality
(%
)
ERVIMS
n=44 n=233 n=61n=74
Why worry about Cardiogenic Shock?
Cardiogenic shock complicates 6-8% of STEMI*
Mortality is 60.1%**
It is the leading cause of death from STEMI
* GUSTO, NRMI, GRACE
** Shock registry JACC 2000
ESC Guidelines for Revascularisation
• Complete revascularisation has been recommended with PCI in all critically stenosed large epicardial coronary arteries
Right Ventricular Infarction (3%)
• Shock with clear lungs • Elevated JVP • ECG and echo
• Maintain preload• Reduce RV afterload• Maintain AV synchrony
Mortality by PCI outcomes
38 39
55
85
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 23 2 1-0TIMI FLOW
SuccUnsuccPCI
Webb, JACC 2003;42:1380.
Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices
• Even with revascularisation and IABP support mortality from cardiogenic shock post STEMI remains ≥50%
• Recovery of myocardial performance following successful revascularisation may take several days. During this time many patients succumb to low cardiac output
• Efficacy of IABP is limited by the lack of active cardiac support, requirement for a certain level of LV function, and the need for accurate synchronisation with cardiac cycle
• Patients with severely impaired LV function and/or persistent tachyarrhythmias derive little benefit from IABP
Management Principles
• Diagnose & treat causes other than LV failure
• Support cardiac output and organ perfusion– Inotropes / pressors– Mechanical support
• Early Revascularisation• PCI/CABG
Inotropes and Vasopressors
Agent Doseμg/min
αvasoconstrict
βInotropy/vasodilate
Arrhythmia
Epinephrine 2-10 ++ +++ +++
Norepinephrine 0.5-30 +++ ++ ++
Dopamine
5-10 ++ ++ ++
10-20 +++ +++ +++
Dobutamine 2-20 + +++ ++
Isoproterenol 2-10 0 +++ +++
• Vasoconstriction (by SVR) is often absent* • Patients with vasoconstriction have better outcome*
* SHOCK Data
PCI + staged CABG
• Chiu et al
• Single centre retrospective registry study
• PCI only vs PCI + staged CABG for cardiogenic shock with multivessel disease
• Propensity matched n=44 in each group
• 1.3 vessels revascularised by PCI; 2.6 by CABG
• 30-day mortality 20.5% PCI + CABG vs 40.9% PCI only