Coronary perfusion pressure and left ventricular hemodynamics as predictors of cardiovascular collapse following percutaneous coronary intervention.
Acute Coronary Syndrome
/ mortality
Aged
Coronary Circulation
Female
Hemodynamics
Hospital Mortality
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
/ adverse effects
Predictive Value of Tests
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Shock
/ etiology
Stroke Volume
Treatment Outcome
Ventricular Function, Left
Ventricular Pressure
Acute coronary syndromes
Coronary perfusion pressure
Mechanical circulatory support
Percutaneous coronary intervention
Journal
Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions
ISSN: 1878-0938
Titre abrégé: Cardiovasc Revasc Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101238551
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2019
01 2019
Historique:
received:
05
09
2018
accepted:
06
09
2018
pubmed:
16
9
2018
medline:
12
2
2020
entrez:
16
9
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Appropriate patient selection for mechanical circulatory support following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains a challenge. This study aims to evaluate the role of coronary perfusion pressure and other left ventricular hemodynamics to predict cardiovascular collapse following PCI. We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent PCI for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) from 2003 to 2016. Coronary perfusion pressure was calculated for each patient and defined as the difference in mean arterial pressure and left ventricular end diastolic pressure (LVEDP). Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine predictor of composite outcome of in-hospital mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), congestive heart failure (CHF), and cardiogenic shock. Nine hundred twenty-two patients were analyzed. Two-hundred twenty-eight (25%) presented with ST-elevation MI (STEMI) while 694 (75%) underwent PCI for unstable angina or non-Q-wave MI. The mean LVEDP was significantly higher in the STEMI patients (24 ± 9 vs. 19 ± 8 mm Hg, p < 0.05) and perfusion pressure significantly lower (68 ± 24 vs. 74 ± 18 mm Hg, p < 0.05). Eighty-seven (9.4%) reached the composite endpoint, and there was no difference between the STEMI and Not-STEMI groups. Neither LVEDP nor coronary perfusion pressure was a predictor of the composite outcome following multivariable logistic regression analysis for either STEMI or Not-STEMI patients. Increasing age, chronic renal insufficiency (CRI), CHF, and low left ventricular ejection fraction were predictors of the composite outcome for Not-STEMI patients, whereas only history of cerebrovascular accident and CRI were predictors for STEMI patients. In hemodynamically stable patients presenting with ACS, LVEDP and coronary perfusion pressure are not predictive of in-hospital cardiovascular collapse. The authors retrospectively analyzed 922 patients from a single center who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndromes to evaluate the role of coronary perfusion pressure and other left ventricular hemodynamics to predict cardiovascular collapse following PCI. They found that neither coronary perfusion pressure nor left ventricular end diastolic pressure was predictive of in-hospital cardiovascular collapse.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
Appropriate patient selection for mechanical circulatory support following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains a challenge. This study aims to evaluate the role of coronary perfusion pressure and other left ventricular hemodynamics to predict cardiovascular collapse following PCI.
METHODS/MATERIALS
We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent PCI for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) from 2003 to 2016. Coronary perfusion pressure was calculated for each patient and defined as the difference in mean arterial pressure and left ventricular end diastolic pressure (LVEDP). Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine predictor of composite outcome of in-hospital mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), congestive heart failure (CHF), and cardiogenic shock.
RESULTS
Nine hundred twenty-two patients were analyzed. Two-hundred twenty-eight (25%) presented with ST-elevation MI (STEMI) while 694 (75%) underwent PCI for unstable angina or non-Q-wave MI. The mean LVEDP was significantly higher in the STEMI patients (24 ± 9 vs. 19 ± 8 mm Hg, p < 0.05) and perfusion pressure significantly lower (68 ± 24 vs. 74 ± 18 mm Hg, p < 0.05). Eighty-seven (9.4%) reached the composite endpoint, and there was no difference between the STEMI and Not-STEMI groups. Neither LVEDP nor coronary perfusion pressure was a predictor of the composite outcome following multivariable logistic regression analysis for either STEMI or Not-STEMI patients. Increasing age, chronic renal insufficiency (CRI), CHF, and low left ventricular ejection fraction were predictors of the composite outcome for Not-STEMI patients, whereas only history of cerebrovascular accident and CRI were predictors for STEMI patients.
CONCLUSIONS
In hemodynamically stable patients presenting with ACS, LVEDP and coronary perfusion pressure are not predictive of in-hospital cardiovascular collapse.
SUMMARY
The authors retrospectively analyzed 922 patients from a single center who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndromes to evaluate the role of coronary perfusion pressure and other left ventricular hemodynamics to predict cardiovascular collapse following PCI. They found that neither coronary perfusion pressure nor left ventricular end diastolic pressure was predictive of in-hospital cardiovascular collapse.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30217626
pii: S1553-8389(18)30406-8
doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2018.09.005
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
11-15Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.