Download PDF
Der Klinikarzt 2019; 48(04): 142-147
DOI: 10.1055/a-0888-6989
Schwerpunkt
© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Der infarktbedingte kardiogene Schock

Interventionelle Therapie und mechanische Kreislauf-Unterstützungssysteme
Oliver Dörr
1   Universitätsklinikum Gießen, Medizinische Klinik I, Gießen
,
Christian Hamm
1   Universitätsklinikum Gießen, Medizinische Klinik I, Gießen
2   Campus Kerckhoff der Universität Gießen, Herz- und Thoraxzentrum, Bad Nauheim
,
Holger M. Nef
1   Universitätsklinikum Gießen, Medizinische Klinik I, Gießen
3   Herz-Kreislauf-Zentrum, Abteilung für Kardiologie, Rotenburg a. d. F.
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
03 May 2019 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Die Prognose der Patienten im kardiogenen Schock kann durch eine frühzeitige invasive Diagnostik und rasche Myokardrevaskularisation verbessert werden. Hierbei hat sich die PCI der Culprit-Lesion gegenüber der kompletten Revaskularisation in der Akutphase als überlegen gezeigt. Durch mechanische Unterstützungssysteme konnte eine Prognoseverbesserung erzielt werden, deren Vorteil allerdings durch weitere prospektive Studien validiert werden muss.

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Aissaoui N, Puymirat E, Juilliere Y. et al. Fifteen-year trends in the management of cardiogenic shock and associated 1-year mortality in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction: the FAST-MI programme. Eur J Heart Fail 2016; 18: 1144-1152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Aissaoui N, Puymirat E, Tabone X. et al. Improved outcome of cardiogenic shock at the acute stage of myocardial infarction: a report from the USIK 1995, USIC 2000, and FAST-MI French nationwide registries. Eur Heart J 2012; 33: 2535-2543
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Goldberg RJ, Spencer FA, Gore JM. et al. 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 2009; 119: 1211-1219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Thiele H, Ohman EM, Desch S. et al. Management of cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J 2015; 36: 1223-1230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Thiele H. [Cardiogenic shock : Current evidence]. Herz 2017; 42: 795-806
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, Investigators S. et al. Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 2006; 295: 2511-2515
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hochman JS, Buller CE, Sleeper LA. et al. Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction--etiologies, management and outcome: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK?. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36: 1063-1070
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ. et al. Intraaortic Balloon Pump in cardiogenic shock IIti. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial. Lancet 2013; 382: 1638-1645
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Katz JN, Stebbins AL, Alexander JH, Investigators T. et al. Predictors of 30-day mortality in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction despite a patent infarct artery. Am Heart J 2009; 158: 680-687
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sleeper LA, Reynolds HR, White HD. et al. A severity scoring system for risk assessment of patients with cardiogenic shock: a report from the SHOCK Trial and Registry. Am Heart J 2010; 160: 443-450
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD. et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed) 2016; 69: 1167
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A. et al. and Group ESCSD. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2019; 40: 87-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S. et al. and Group ESCSD. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2018; 39: 119-177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 De Backer D, Biston P, Devriendt J and Investigators SI. Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 779-789
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Mebazaa A, Nieminen MS, Packer M. et al. and Investigators S. Levosimendan vs dobutamine for patients with acute decompensated heart failure: the SURVIVE Randomized Trial. JAMA 2007; 297: 1883-1891
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Unverzagt S, Wachsmuth L, Hirsch K. et al. Inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock or low cardiac output syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014: CD009669
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ. et al. and Investigators I-SIT. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 1287-1296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, White HD. et al. One-year survival following early revascularization for cardiogenic shock. JAMA 2001; 285: 190-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG. et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 625-634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 de Waha S, Jobs A, Eitel I. et al. Multivessel versus culprit lesion only percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2018; 7: 28-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 White HD, Assmann SF, Sanborn TA. et al. Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting after acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial. Circulation 2005; 112: 1992-2001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, Investigators C-S. et al. One-Year Outcomes after PCI Strategies in Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med 2018; 379: 1699-1710
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M. et al. and Investigators C-S. PCI Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 2419-2432
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Thiele H, Jobs A, Ouweneel DM. et al. Percutaneous short-term active mechanical support devices in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur Heart J 2017; 38: 3523-3531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ait Ichou J, Larivee N, Eisenberg MJ. et al. The effectiveness and safety of the Impella ventricular assist device for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 91: 1250-1260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 O‘Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J. et al. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study. Circulation 2012; 126: 1717-1727
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Pershad A, Fraij G, Massaro JM. et al. Comparison of the use of hemodynamic support in patients > / = 80 years versus patients < 80 years during high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (from the Multicenter PROTECT II Randomized Study). Am J Cardiol 2014; 114: 657-664
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 O‘Neill WW, Schreiber T, Wohns DH. et al. The current use of Impella 2.5 in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the USpella Registry. J Interv Cardiol 2014; 27: 1-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Pappalardo F, Scandroglio AM, Latib A. Full percutaneous biventricular support with two Impella pumps: the Bi-Pella approach. ESC Heart Fail 2018; 5: 368-371
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ouweneel DM, Schotborgh JV, Limpens J. et al. Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med 2016; 42: 1922-1934
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I. et al. A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 52: 1584-1588
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Napp LC, Kuhn C, Bauersachs J. ECMO in cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock. Herz 2017; 42: 27-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Pappalardo F, Schulte C, Pieri M. et al. Concomitant implantation of Impella((R)) on top of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may improve survival of patients with cardiogenic shock. Eur J Heart Fail 2017; 19: 404-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Poss J, Kriechbaum S, Ewen S. et al. First-in-man analysis of the i-cor assist device in patients with cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2015; 4: 475-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Wang S, Kunselman AR, Clark JB, Undar A. In vitro hemodynamic evaluation of a novel pulsatile extracorporeal life support system: impact of perfusion modes and circuit components on energy loss. Artif Organs 2015; 39: 59-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar