Optimum Blood Pressure in Patients With Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiac Arrest.


Journal

Journal of the American College of Cardiology
ISSN: 1558-3597
Titre abrégé: J Am Coll Cardiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8301365

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
18 08 2020
Historique:
received: 09 09 2019
revised: 08 06 2020
accepted: 12 06 2020
entrez: 15 8 2020
pubmed: 15 8 2020
medline: 23 1 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

In patients with shock after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the optimal level of pharmacologic support is unknown. Whereas higher doses may increase myocardial oxygen consumption and induce arrhythmias, diastolic hypotension may reduce coronary perfusion and increase infarct size. This study aimed to determine the optimal mean arterial pressure (MAP) in patients with AMI and shock after cardiac arrest. This study used patient-level pooled analysis of post-cardiac arrest patients with shock after AMI randomized in the Neuroprotect (Neuroprotective Goal Directed Hemodynamic Optimization in Post-cardiac Arrest Patients; NCT02541591) and COMACARE (Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen and Mean Arterial Pressure After Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation; NCT02698917) trials who were randomized to MAP 65 mm Hg or MAP 80/85 to 100 mm Hg targets during the first 36 h after admission. The primary endpoint was the area under the 72-h high-sensitivity troponin-T curve. Of 235 patients originally randomized, 120 patients had AMI with shock. Patients assigned to the higher MAP target (n = 58) received higher doses of norepinephrine (p = 0.004) and dobutamine (p = 0.01) and reached higher MAPs (86 ± 9 mm Hg vs. 72 ± 10 mm Hg, p < 0.001). Whereas admission hemodynamics and angiographic findings were all well-balanced and revascularization was performed equally effective, the area under the 72-h high-sensitivity troponin-T curve was lower in patients assigned to the higher MAP target (median: 1.14 μg.72 h/l [interquartile range: 0.35 to 2.31 μg.72 h/l] vs. median: 1.56 μg.72 h/l [interquartile range: 0.61 to 4.72 μg. 72 h/l]; p = 0.04). Additional pharmacologic support did not increase the risk of a new cardiac arrest (p = 0.88) or atrial fibrillation (p = 0.94). Survival with good neurologic outcome at 180 days was not different between both groups (64% vs. 53%, odds ratio: 1.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.74 to 3.22). In post-cardiac arrest patients with shock after AMI, targeting MAP between 80/85 and 100 mm Hg with additional use of inotropes and vasopressors was associated with smaller myocardial injury.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
In patients with shock after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the optimal level of pharmacologic support is unknown. Whereas higher doses may increase myocardial oxygen consumption and induce arrhythmias, diastolic hypotension may reduce coronary perfusion and increase infarct size.
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to determine the optimal mean arterial pressure (MAP) in patients with AMI and shock after cardiac arrest.
METHODS
This study used patient-level pooled analysis of post-cardiac arrest patients with shock after AMI randomized in the Neuroprotect (Neuroprotective Goal Directed Hemodynamic Optimization in Post-cardiac Arrest Patients; NCT02541591) and COMACARE (Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen and Mean Arterial Pressure After Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation; NCT02698917) trials who were randomized to MAP 65 mm Hg or MAP 80/85 to 100 mm Hg targets during the first 36 h after admission. The primary endpoint was the area under the 72-h high-sensitivity troponin-T curve.
RESULTS
Of 235 patients originally randomized, 120 patients had AMI with shock. Patients assigned to the higher MAP target (n = 58) received higher doses of norepinephrine (p = 0.004) and dobutamine (p = 0.01) and reached higher MAPs (86 ± 9 mm Hg vs. 72 ± 10 mm Hg, p < 0.001). Whereas admission hemodynamics and angiographic findings were all well-balanced and revascularization was performed equally effective, the area under the 72-h high-sensitivity troponin-T curve was lower in patients assigned to the higher MAP target (median: 1.14 μg.72 h/l [interquartile range: 0.35 to 2.31 μg.72 h/l] vs. median: 1.56 μg.72 h/l [interquartile range: 0.61 to 4.72 μg. 72 h/l]; p = 0.04). Additional pharmacologic support did not increase the risk of a new cardiac arrest (p = 0.88) or atrial fibrillation (p = 0.94). Survival with good neurologic outcome at 180 days was not different between both groups (64% vs. 53%, odds ratio: 1.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.74 to 3.22).
CONCLUSIONS
In post-cardiac arrest patients with shock after AMI, targeting MAP between 80/85 and 100 mm Hg with additional use of inotropes and vasopressors was associated with smaller myocardial injury.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32792079
pii: S0735-1097(20)35740-5
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.043
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Cardiotonic Agents 0
Troponin T 0
Vasoconstrictor Agents 0

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02541591', 'NCT02698917']

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

812-824

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Koen Ameloot (K)

Department of Cardiology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium; Department of Cardiology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, University Hasselt, Diepenbeek, Belgium. Electronic address: Koen.ameloot@zol.be.

Pekka Jakkula (P)

Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.

Johanna Hästbacka (J)

Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.

Matti Reinikainen (M)

Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Eastern Finland and Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland.

Ville Pettilä (V)

Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.

Pekka Loisa (P)

Department of Intensive Care, Päijät-Häme Central Hospital, Lahti, Finland.

Marjaana Tiainen (M)

Department of Neurology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.

Stepani Bendel (S)

Department of Intensive Care, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland.

Thomas Birkelund (T)

Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

Ann Belmans (A)

Department of Cardiology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Pieter-Jan Palmers (PJ)

Department of Cardiology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium.

Eline Bogaerts (E)

Department of Cardiology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Robin Lemmens (R)

Department of Neurology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; VIB, Center for Brain & Disease Research, Laboratory of Neurobiology, Leuven, Belgium; KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Department of Neurosciences, Experimental Neurology, and Leuven Brain Institute (LBI), Leuven, Belgium.

Cathy De Deyne (C)

Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, University Hasselt, Diepenbeek, Belgium; Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium.

Bert Ferdinande (B)

Department of Cardiology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium.

Matthias Dupont (M)

Department of Cardiology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium.

Stefan Janssens (S)

Department of Cardiology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Joseph Dens (J)

Department of Cardiology, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Genk, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, University Hasselt, Diepenbeek, Belgium.

Markus B Skrifvars (MB)

Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland; Department of Emergency Medicine and Services, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH