Cardiogenic shock

M. Moscucci, E. R. Bates

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Despite advancements in the pharmacologic treatment of acute myocardial infarction and the introduction of mechanical hemodynamic support, in- hospital mortality rates for cardiogenic shock have remained between 70% and 80%. In addition, the proven beneficial effects of thrombolytic therapy in reducing mortality in acute myocardial infarction have not been paralled by similar results in cardiogenic shock. Emergency revascularization appears to be the only intervention that may modify the prognosis of cardiogenic shock. Because the absence of controlled data, however, final conclusions cannot yet be drawn. Two ongoing randomized clinical trials will try to answer the unsolved issues. In the multicenter international SHOCK trial (Should We Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock), patients are being randomized to PTCA or conservative treatment, with mortality as the primary end point. A similar end point will be evaluated in the Swiss Multicenter Study of Angioplasty for Shock Following Myocardial Infarction (SMASH) trial. It is hoped that these two randomized trials will be able to prove the value of PTCA in cardiogenic shock and identify the subset of patients most likely to benefit from such treatment.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)391-406
Number of pages16
JournalCardiology Clinics
Volume13
Issue number3
StatePublished - Jan 1 1995

Fingerprint

Cardiogenic Shock
Myocardial Infarction
Mortality
Thrombolytic Therapy
Hospital Mortality
Angioplasty
Multicenter Studies
Shock
Emergencies
Randomized Controlled Trials
Hemodynamics
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Moscucci, M., & Bates, E. R. (1995). Cardiogenic shock. Cardiology Clinics, 13(3), 391-406.

Cardiogenic shock. / Moscucci, M.; Bates, E. R.

In: Cardiology Clinics, Vol. 13, No. 3, 01.01.1995, p. 391-406.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Moscucci, M & Bates, ER 1995, 'Cardiogenic shock', Cardiology Clinics, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 391-406.
Moscucci M, Bates ER. Cardiogenic shock. Cardiology Clinics. 1995 Jan 1;13(3):391-406.
Moscucci, M. ; Bates, E. R. / Cardiogenic shock. In: Cardiology Clinics. 1995 ; Vol. 13, No. 3. pp. 391-406.
@article{edd72421394c43ffb7d5a73e9c223aa4,
title = "Cardiogenic shock",
abstract = "Despite advancements in the pharmacologic treatment of acute myocardial infarction and the introduction of mechanical hemodynamic support, in- hospital mortality rates for cardiogenic shock have remained between 70{\%} and 80{\%}. In addition, the proven beneficial effects of thrombolytic therapy in reducing mortality in acute myocardial infarction have not been paralled by similar results in cardiogenic shock. Emergency revascularization appears to be the only intervention that may modify the prognosis of cardiogenic shock. Because the absence of controlled data, however, final conclusions cannot yet be drawn. Two ongoing randomized clinical trials will try to answer the unsolved issues. In the multicenter international SHOCK trial (Should We Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock), patients are being randomized to PTCA or conservative treatment, with mortality as the primary end point. A similar end point will be evaluated in the Swiss Multicenter Study of Angioplasty for Shock Following Myocardial Infarction (SMASH) trial. It is hoped that these two randomized trials will be able to prove the value of PTCA in cardiogenic shock and identify the subset of patients most likely to benefit from such treatment.",
author = "M. Moscucci and Bates, {E. R.}",
year = "1995",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "391--406",
journal = "Cardiology Clinics",
issn = "0733-8651",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cardiogenic shock

AU - Moscucci, M.

AU - Bates, E. R.

PY - 1995/1/1

Y1 - 1995/1/1

N2 - Despite advancements in the pharmacologic treatment of acute myocardial infarction and the introduction of mechanical hemodynamic support, in- hospital mortality rates for cardiogenic shock have remained between 70% and 80%. In addition, the proven beneficial effects of thrombolytic therapy in reducing mortality in acute myocardial infarction have not been paralled by similar results in cardiogenic shock. Emergency revascularization appears to be the only intervention that may modify the prognosis of cardiogenic shock. Because the absence of controlled data, however, final conclusions cannot yet be drawn. Two ongoing randomized clinical trials will try to answer the unsolved issues. In the multicenter international SHOCK trial (Should We Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock), patients are being randomized to PTCA or conservative treatment, with mortality as the primary end point. A similar end point will be evaluated in the Swiss Multicenter Study of Angioplasty for Shock Following Myocardial Infarction (SMASH) trial. It is hoped that these two randomized trials will be able to prove the value of PTCA in cardiogenic shock and identify the subset of patients most likely to benefit from such treatment.

AB - Despite advancements in the pharmacologic treatment of acute myocardial infarction and the introduction of mechanical hemodynamic support, in- hospital mortality rates for cardiogenic shock have remained between 70% and 80%. In addition, the proven beneficial effects of thrombolytic therapy in reducing mortality in acute myocardial infarction have not been paralled by similar results in cardiogenic shock. Emergency revascularization appears to be the only intervention that may modify the prognosis of cardiogenic shock. Because the absence of controlled data, however, final conclusions cannot yet be drawn. Two ongoing randomized clinical trials will try to answer the unsolved issues. In the multicenter international SHOCK trial (Should We Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock), patients are being randomized to PTCA or conservative treatment, with mortality as the primary end point. A similar end point will be evaluated in the Swiss Multicenter Study of Angioplasty for Shock Following Myocardial Infarction (SMASH) trial. It is hoped that these two randomized trials will be able to prove the value of PTCA in cardiogenic shock and identify the subset of patients most likely to benefit from such treatment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029090353&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029090353&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 391

EP - 406

JO - Cardiology Clinics

JF - Cardiology Clinics

SN - 0733-8651

IS - 3

ER -