Mechanical right ventricular involvement is independent of right coronary arterial bed and has a prognostic impact in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock
J A Ortega-Hernandez,R Espinosa-Soto,H Gonzalez-Pacheco,D Manzur-Sandoval,R Gopar-Nieto,D Sierra-Lara-Martinez,D Araiza-Garaygordobil,J Hernandez-Montfort,A Arias-Mendoza
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.1745
IF: 39.3
2024-10-29
European Heart Journal
Abstract:Background In Acute Myocardial Infarction complicated by Cardiogenic Shock(AMI-CS), understanding the implications of right ventricular involvement (RVi) is crucial for refining risk stratification and optimizing management. Purpose Distinguish the prognosis in RVi at baseline(RVB) and persistent(RVP) in AMI-CS Methods 357 patients with AMI-CS+PAC serial measures at 0, 6, 12, 24h. RVi was defined as the presence of all 4 criteria PAPI<1; RVSWi≤4.08; RAP≥15 mmHg; and PVC/PCP≥0.86 and persistent as the presence of the 4 criteria at 4 time points. For hemodynamic measures, repeated measures ANOVA; and KM curves and Cox regression were performed. Results 300 without vs 57 with RVB. Additionally, 344 without vs 13 had RVP. Killip-Kimball classification showed a higher significant association with both RVB(P=0.042). A higher percentage of RVB received vasopressin(P=0.008), and there was a significant association with levosimendan use(P=0.009) in RVP. The higher MODS score, RVB(P=0.017) and RVP(P=0.029). The number of vasoactives was higher in RVB(P=0.031) RVP(P=0.009). Finally, the phenotypic characterization revealed a significant association with RVB(P=0.001) and RVP(P=0.032) more cardio-metabolic. The SCAI-CSWG classification indicated a higher proportion in the E category for both RVB(P=0.046) and not significant in RVP(P=0.405). Overall, mortality rates did not differ significantly between in RVB(P=0.174) or RVP(P=0.117), although there was a trend towards higher mortality in patients with RVi. Age, sex, DM, HTN, previous MI, PCI, CABG, stroke, and type of MI, primary reperfusion, LVEF, and laboratory parameters did not differ. RVB had higher heart rate(P=0.036), RAP, PASP(both P<0.001), lower SBP(P=0.049), cardiac output(P=0.004), index(P=0.001), power(P=0.012), power index(P=0.002), CPI(RAP), perfusion pressure, PAPi(both P<0.001), Stroke volume(SV, P=0.001), SVi(P<0.001), LVSWi(P=0.001), and RVSWi(P<0.001). RVP higher RAP(<0.001), and lower cardiac output(P=0.008), index(P=0.005), power(P=0.034), power index(P=0.029), CPI(RAP)(P=0.002), perfusion pressure(P=0.035), PAPi(P<0.001), SV(P=0.018), SVi(P=0.011), LVSWi(P=0.034) RVSWi(P<0.001). Importantly interaction between group*time was found in RVB in RAP(P<0.001), mPAP(P=0.038), perfusion pressure(P=0.002) and RVSWi(P<0.001) and in RVP in SV(P=0.014), SVi(P=0.013) and LVSWi(P=0.028) suggest that RVi had different hemodynamic response. For RVB a reduction of -4.16 days in survival time (-7.79, -0.54, P=0.024); Logrank P=0.035. Similarly, for RVP demonstrated a significant reduction of -7.27 days (-14.08, -0.47, P=0.036); Logrank P=0.017. No significant of the culprit artery in RVB, RVP (P>0.05) was observed. RVB and RVP was strongly associated with a higher prevalence of RVi (STe-V3/4R) on ECG (35.1 vs. 11.7%, and 61.5 vs. 13.7%, P<0.001). Conclusion In AMI-CS, RVi, whether baseline or persistent, is associated with distinct hemodynamic profiles and a trend toward higher mortality.Figure 1.Hemodynamics of RVB(A-C) & RVP(D-F)Figure 2.Survival of RVB, RVP (A, B) & HR(C)
cardiac & cardiovascular systems