Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros












Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Am Heart Assoc ; 13(3): e031803, 2024 Feb 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38293995

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions proposed a staging system (A-E) to predict prognosis in cardiogenic shock. Herein, we report clinical outcomes of the RECOVER III study for the first time, according to Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock classification. METHODS AND RESULTS: The RECOVER III study is an observational, prospective, multicenter, single-arm, postapproval study of patients with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with Impella support. Patients enrolled in the RECOVER III study were assigned a baseline Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stage. Staging was then repeated within 24 hours after initiation of Impella. Kaplan-Meier survival curve analyses were conducted to assess survival across Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stages at both time points. At baseline assessment, 16.5%, 11.4%, and 72.2% were classified as stage C, D, and E, respectively. At ≤24-hour assessment, 26.4%, 33.2%, and 40.0% were classified as stage C, D, and E, respectively. Thirty-day survival among patients with stage C, D, and E shock at baseline was 59.7%, 56.5%, and 42.9%, respectively (P=0.003). Survival among patients with stage C, D, and E shock at ≤24 hours was 65.7%, 52.1%, and 29.5%, respectively (P<0.001). After multivariable analysis of impact of shock stage classifications at baseline and ≤24 hours, only stage E classification at ≤24 hours was a significant predictor of mortality (odds ratio, 4.8; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world cohort of patients with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with Impella support, only stage E classification at ≤24 hours was significantly predictive of mortality, suggesting that response to therapy may be more important than clinical severity of shock at presentation.


Asunto(s)
Corazón Auxiliar , Infarto del Miocardio , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea , Humanos , Angiografía , Infarto del Miocardio/complicaciones , Infarto del Miocardio/diagnóstico , Infarto del Miocardio/terapia , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/efectos adversos , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/métodos , Estudios Prospectivos , Choque Cardiogénico/diagnóstico , Choque Cardiogénico/etiología , Choque Cardiogénico/terapia , Resultado del Tratamiento
2.
Eur Heart J Case Rep ; 5(3): ytab103, 2021 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34113773

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) reinfection has been a topic of discussion with data still emerging. Viral antibodies are known to develop upon initial infection; however, it is unclear the amount of protection this confers against reinfection. Additionally, COVID-19-associated coagulopathy (CAC) is a well-documented phenomenon; however, there are no high-quality studies to support the treatment of outpatients beyond standard indications of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. This case describes a patient with either COVID-19 reinfection or prolonged course of CAC resulting in pulmonary embolism (PE). CASE SUMMARY: A 40-year-old healthy man presented with fever and cough. He tested positive for COVID-19 and was sent home to self-quarantine. His symptoms resolved and repeat COVID-19 testing returned negative. Two months later, he developed dyspnoea on exertion and syncope. Computed tomography with PE protocol demonstrated acute bilateral PE, and repeat COVID-19 testing returned positive. He was escalated to catheter-directed thrombolysis, but prior to the procedure went into cardiopulmonary arrest. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was initiated and full-dose systemic alteplase was administered. Cardiothoracic surgery was consulted for consideration of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; however, return of spontaneous circulation was unable to be achieved. DISCUSSION: This case raises the question of COVID-19 reinfection and prolonged risk of VTE due to CAC. We believe the patient was reinfected with COVID-19 provoking his PE; however, a single COVID-19 infection causing a prolonged course of CAC is possible. Until better data exists, decisions regarding outpatient prophylaxis must be individualized to weigh the risks of bleeding against the risk of thrombosis.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...