2005PubMedRequires access

[Observation of short- and mid-term clinical outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction with heart failure or cardiogenic shock].

Tong-han Wang, Yingfeng Liu, Zhiliang Li, Xianglong Wei, Xiang-Dong Shi

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To observe the short- and mid-term effects of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by heart failure and/or cardiogenic shock . METHODS: Altogether 90 patients with AMI were recruited, of whom 58 were treated by PCI, 20 by thrombolytic therapy, and the other received general treatment without reperfusion therapy. The length of hospital stay, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were compared between PCI and thrombolysis groups. The relationship between the patency time of the infarct-related artery (IRA), thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade after PCI and prognosis were analyzed in PCI group. RESULTS: The patency rate of IRA was significantly improved in patients receiving PCI therapy in comparison by those with thrombolytic therapy (98.3% vs 65.0%, P<0.01), and the LVEF was also higher in PCI group with lower mortality (6.9% vs 25.0%, P<0.05) during in-hospital and follow-up period. CONCLUSION: PCI can be a more effective therapy than thrombolytic therapy in the treatment of ST-segment elevation AMI accompanied with heart failure and/or cardiogenic shock.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: To observe the short- and mid-term effects of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by heart failure and/or cardiogenic shock . METHODS: Altogether 90 patients with AMI were recruited, of whom 58 were treated by PCI, 20 by thrombolytic therapy, and the other received general treatment without reperfusion therapy. The length of hospital stay, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were compared between PCI and thrombolysis groups. The relationship between the patency time of the infarct-related artery (IRA), thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade after PCI and prognosis were analyzed in PCI group. RESULTS: The patency rate of IRA was significantly improved in patients receiving PCI therapy in comparison by those with thrombolytic therapy (98.3% vs 65.0%, P<0.01), and the LVEF was also higher in PCI group with lower mortality (6.9% vs 25.0%, P<0.05) during in-hospital and follow-up period. CONCLUSION: PCI can be a more effective therapy than thrombolytic therapy in the treatment of ST-segment elevation AMI accompanied with heart failure and/or cardiogenic shock.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: To observe the short- and mid-term effects of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by heart failure and/or cardiogenic shock . METHODS: Altogether 90 patients with AMI were recruited, of whom 58 were treated by PCI, 20 by thrombolytic therapy, and the other received general treatment without reperfusion therapy. The length of hospital stay, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were compared between PCI and thrombolysis groups. The relationship between the patency time of the infarct-related artery (IRA), thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade after PCI and prognosis were analyzed in PCI group. RESULTS: The patency rate of IRA was significantly improved in patients receiving PCI therapy in comparison by those with thrombolytic therapy (98.3% vs 65.0%, P<0.01), and the LVEF was also higher in PCI group with lower mortality (6.9% vs 25.0%, P<0.05) during in-hospital and follow-up period. CONCLUSION: PCI can be a more effective therapy than thrombolytic therapy in the treatment of ST-segment elevation AMI accompanied with heart failure and/or cardiogenic shock.

Key concepts: Cardiogenic shock, Conventional PCI, Medicine, Cardiology, Myocardial infarction, Ejection fraction, Percutaneous coronary intervention, Internal medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
[Observation of short- and mid-term clinical outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction with heart failure or cardiogenic shock]. — Research Paper | ScholarLens