Background: Cardiogenic shock complicating acute coronary syndrome (ACS) implies grim prognosis with conventional management. Previous studies of coronary intervention yielded controversial results and were rarely analyzed chronologically. This study was to determine the impact of percutaneous coronary revascularization on outcome by studying two time periods 5 years apart in which the revascularization was more frequent and techniques more refined in the later period.
Methods and materials: All patients admitted to the intensive or coronary care unit for ACS in two 1.5-year study periods (Period I: Jan 1994-Jun 1995, Period II: Oct 1999-Apr 2000) were retrospectively screened. Patients who met strict criteria of cardiogenic shock within 24 h of ACS were enrolled. The demographics, management and in-hospital/3-month outcomes were analyzed.
Results: Thirty-seven patients (33M/4F, aged 65+/-8 years) were enrolled in Period I and 32 patients (25M/7F, aged 68+/-13 years) in Period II. The incidence of cardiogenic shock was 11.8 and 9.3%, respectively. The demographics were similar except patients in Period II were older. Significantly more coronary angiography and interventions were done in the later period. The in-hospital (68 vs. 44%, P=0.047) and 3-month mortalities (70 vs. 44%, P=0.03) were significantly reduced in Period II. The in-hospital survivors in two study periods differed only in use of coronary angiography (94 vs. 50%, P=0.005) and interventions (83 vs. 33%, P=0.005) but not others.
Conclusions: Percutaneous coronary revascularization does improve the clinical outcome of cardiogenic shock when analyzed chronologically. This treatment is warranted in every such patient in the interventional era.