4.7 Article

Cardiogenic shock caused by right ventricular infarction - A report from the SHOCK registry

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 41, Issue 8, Pages 1273-1279

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(03)00120-7

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01-HL50020-018Z, R01-HL49970] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to determine the characteristics and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock due to predominant right ventricular (RV) infarction. BACKGROUND Although RV infarction has been shown to have favorable long-term outcomes, the influence of RV infarction on mortality in cardiogenic shock is unknown. METHODS We evaluated 933 patients in cardiogenic shock due to predominant RV (n = 49) or left ventricular (LV) failure (n = 884) in the SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded coronaries for Cardiogenic shocK? (SHOCK) trial registry. RESULTS Patients with predominant RV shock were younger, with a lower prevalence of previous MI (25.5 vs. 40.1%, p = 0.047), anterior MI, and multivessel disease (34.8 vs. 77.8%, p < 0.001) and a shorter median time between the index MI and the diagnosis of shock (2.9 vs. 6.2 h, p = 0.003) in comparison to patients with LV shock. In-hospital mortality was 53.1% versus 60.8% (p = 0.296) for patients with predominant RV and LV shock, respectively, and the influence of revascularization on mortality was not different between groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that RV shock was not an independent predictor of lower in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 2.13). CONCLUSIONS Despite the younger age, lower rate of anterior MI, and higher prevalence of single-vessel coronary disease of RV compared with LV shock patients, and their similar benefit from revascularization, mortality is unexpectedly high in patients with predominant RV shock and similar to patients with LV shock. (C) 2003 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available