4.7 Article

Non-STEMI vs. STEMI Cardiogenic Shock: Clinical Profile and Long-Term Outcomes

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11123558

关键词

STEMI; NSTEMI; cardiogenic shock; prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cardiogenic shock is a severe complication of acute myocardial infarction. This study analyzed the clinical profile, acute-phase prognosis, and long-term outcomes of cardiogenic shock patients based on the ST pattern on admission. It was found that patients with elevated ST segment had higher 30-day mortality, but no differences in long-term outcomes were observed.
Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a severe complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). In AMI-CS, the ST segment deviation on ECG may be elevated (STEMI-CS) or non-elevated (NSTEMI-CS), which may influence prognosis. Our aim was to analyze the clinical profile, acute-phase prognosis, and long-term outcomes of CS relative to the ST pattern on admission. In a prospective registry of 4647 AMI patients admitted to the intensive cardiac care unit of a university hospital between 2010 and 2019, we compared the clinical characteristics, 30-days case fatality, and long-term outcomes of AMI-CS, based on the presence of ST-segment deviation. AMI-CS developed in 239 (5.1%) patients (26.4% women): 190 (79.5%) STEMI-CS and 49 (20.5%) NSTEMI-CS. The mean age was 69.7 years. The STEMI-CS patients had larger infarcts and more mechanical complications than the NSTEMI-CS patients. The NSTEMI-CS patients had a greater prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, previous cardiovascular comorbidities, three-vessel disease, and left main disease than the STEMI-CS patients. The STEMI-CS patients had higher 30-day mortality than the NSTEMI-CS (59.5% vs. 36.7%; p = 0.004), even after multivariable adjustment (HR 1.91; 95% CI 1.16-3.14), but no differences in mortality were observed at 3 years. In conclusion, the 30-day case-fatality is higher in STEMI-CS, but the long-term outcome is similar in both groups.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据