Risk stratification to guide management in cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction. An illustrative case series and review of the literature

Main Article Content

Rajkumar Rajendram*

Abstract



In patients who sustain an Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI), Cardiogenic Shock (CS) is the most common cause of inpatient death. Despite significant advances in medical and surgical management, mortality rates approaching 80% have been described in some cohorts. However, the severity of CS and outcomes after AMI vary widely. Management requires a rapid, well-organised response and accurate risk stratification must guide complex decisions on ceilings of therapy in the acute setting. Whilst validated risk scores (e.g. the IABP-SHOCK II score and the CardShock score) are available, as highlighted in the present illustrative case series, their use must be guided by clinical judgement.


in the setting of CS due to AMI, it is the author’s opinion that, the IABP-SHOCK II score should be used for risk stratification after PCI. It may also be appropriate to use the IABP-SHOCK II score in conjunction with the operator’s opinion on the likelihood of restoration of TIMI 3 flow if the coronary anatomy and targets for PCI are known. However, in patients with AMI who develop CS prior to angiography the author recommends use of the CardShock score for risk stratification rather than consider the pre-PCI IABP-SHOCK II score. However, more data are required to validate this approach.



Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Rajendram, R. (2020). Risk stratification to guide management in cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction. An illustrative case series and review of the literature. Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine and Cardiology, 7(1), 053–056. https://doi.org/10.17352/2455-2976.000112
Case Series Article(s)

Copyright (c) 2020 Rajendram R.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Licensing and protecting the author rights is the central aim and core of the publishing business. Peertechz dedicates itself in making it easier for people to share and build upon the work of others while maintaining consistency with the rules of copyright. Peertechz licensing terms are formulated to facilitate reuse of the manuscripts published in journals to take maximum advantage of Open Access publication and for the purpose of disseminating knowledge.

We support 'libre' open access, which defines Open Access in true terms as free of charge online access along with usage rights. The usage rights are granted through the use of specific Creative Commons license.

Peertechz accomplice with- [CC BY 4.0]

Explanation

'CC' stands for Creative Commons license. 'BY' symbolizes that users have provided attribution to the creator that the published manuscripts can be used or shared. This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to the author.

Please take in notification that Creative Commons user licenses are non-revocable. We recommend authors to check if their funding body requires a specific license.

With this license, the authors are allowed that after publishing with Peertechz, they can share their research by posting a free draft copy of their article to any repository or website.
'CC BY' license observance:

License Name

Permission to read and download

Permission to display in a repository

Permission to translate

Commercial uses of manuscript

CC BY 4.0

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

The authors please note that Creative Commons license is focused on making creative works available for discovery and reuse. Creative Commons licenses provide an alternative to standard copyrights, allowing authors to specify ways that their works can be used without having to grant permission for each individual request. Others who want to reserve all of their rights under copyright law should not use CC licenses.

Goldberg RJ, Spencer FA, Gore JM, Lessard D, Yarzebski J (2009) Thirty-year trends (1975 to 2005) in the magnitude of, management of, and hospital death rates associated with cardiogenic shock in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a population-based perspective. Circulation 119: 1211-1219. Link: https://bit.ly/33sr6WS

Pöss J, Köster J, Fuernau G, Eitel I, de Waha S, et al. (2017) Risk Stratification for Patients in Cardiogenic Shock after Acute Myocardial Infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 69: 1913-1920. Link: https://bit.ly/2QsMfeu

Harjola VP, Lassus J, Sionis A, Køber L, Tarvasmäki T, et al. (2015) Clinical picture and risk prediction of short-term mortality in cardiogenic shock. Eur J Heart Fail 17: 501-509. Link: https://bit.ly/3dcrlda

Rajendram R, Ehtisham J, Forfar JC (2011) Oxford Case Histories in Cardiology. Oxford University Press, UK. Link: https://bit.ly/2J0iSvE

Rivas-Lasarte M, Sans-Roselló J, Collado-Lledó E, García-Fernández V, Noriega FJ, et al. (2020) External validation and comparison of the CardShock and IABP-SHOCK II risk scores in real-world cardiogenic shock patients. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. Link: https://bit.ly/2UhFQ6S

Su D, Yan B, Guo L, Peng L, Wang X, et al. (2015) Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump May Grant No Benefit to Improve the Mortality of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction in Short and Long Term. An Updated Meta-Analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 94: e876. Link: https://bit.ly/3d87goi

Rask-Madsen C, Jensen G, Kober L, Melchior T, Torp-Pedersen C, et al. (1997) Age-related mortality, clinical heart failure, and ventricular fibrillation in 4259 Danish patients after acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 18: 1426-1431. Link: https://bit.ly/2IUtso6

Gurwitz JH, Col NF, Avorn J (1992) The exclusion of the elderly and women from clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 268: 1417-1422. Link: https://bit.ly/2wafrQw

Acharya D (2018) Predictors of Outcomes in Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock. Cardiol Rev 26: 255-266. Link: https://bit.ly/33BpFWk