Abstract:Background Multivessel coronary artery disease frequently occurs in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS), which is associated with a higher mortality rate. Previous studies have focused on revascularisation during the initial admission. The need for revascularisation after discharge has not yet been well-studied. Purpose To determine the incidence of revascularisation after discharge in patients initially hospitalised with AMICS compared to ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients without CS. Methods Data from a cohort of individually validated AMICS patients admitted to two tertiary cardiac centres in Denmark between 2010 and 2017 - the RETROSHOCK cohort - were included (fig.1). Data were cross-linked with The National Patient Register, containing diagnostic and procedural codes for all hospital contacts for Danish citizens. For comparison, an age- and sex-matched cohort of STEMI patients (4:1 ratio) without CS treated at the same centres and within the same timeframe was established from The National Patient Register. The incidence of revascularisation (percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and/or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)) was assessed in patients surviving a "blanking period" of 60 days after discharge to take staged elective revascularisation into account and until a maximum follow-up of 5 years. The cumulative incidence function with death as a competing event was used. Gray's test was used for comparison of incidence functions. Results A total of 1,716 AMICS patients were included, of whom 753 (44%) survived to 60 days after discharge – of those, 538 (71%) patients had STEMI. Revascularisation was performed during follow-up and after the 60-day 'blanking period' in 68 patients (9%) – median follow-up time was 3.4 years in the AMICS group and 3.5 years in the control group. Multivessel disease, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and hyperlipidaemia at index hospitalisation were more prevalent in patients revascularised during the follow-up period (69% vs. 52% p=0.009, 62% vs. 47% p=0.018 and 42% vs. 27% p=0.014) for revascularised vs. not-revascularised). No significant differences in sex or age were present in revascularised vs. not-revascularised patients. The five-year cumulative incidence rate for revascularisation after discharge was 10.0% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 7.9-12.7%), which was similar compared to the matched STEMI cohort without CS (11.5% 95% (CI) 10.7-12.4%), HR 0.88 95% (CI) 0.68-1.13, p=0.319) (fig.1a). The finding was similar in a subgroup analysis of STEMI-only patients with CS compared to the non-CS cohort. Conclusions The cumulative incidence of revascularisation after discharge for AMICS patients was comparable to STEMI patients without CS during five years follow-up. Multivessel disease, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and hyperlipidaemia at index admission were more prevalent in patients who were revascularised during follow-up.

Invasive mechanical ventilation in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: A contemporary Danish cohort analysis

Mechanical Ventilation Associated with Worse Survival in Septic Patients: a Retrospective Analysis of MIMIC-III

Variation in outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation between different countries for patients with severe COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Assessment of respiratory support decision and the outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 with ARDS

Impact of Right Ventricular Dysfunction on Outcomes in Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock: Insights from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative

Utility of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

Revascularisation after discharge in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

Predictive value of invasive mechanical ventilation parameters for mortality in COVID-19 related ARDS: a retrospective cohort study

Outcomes for Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Admitted to Medical vs Cardiac Intensive Care Units

Complications and Outcomes in 39,864 Patients Receiving Standard Care Plus Mechanical Circulatory Support or Standard Care Alone for Infarct-Associated Cardiogenic Shock

Predictors of Mortality in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock despite Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump: Opportunities for Advanced Mechanical Circulatory Support in Asia

Use of intraaortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock patients

A retrospective comparison of mechanical cardio-pulmonary ventilation and manual bag valve ventilation in non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrests: a study from the Belgian Cardiac Arrest Registry

US trends of in-hospital morbidity and mortality for acute myocardial infarctions complicated by cardiogenic shock

Trends and outcomes of different mechanical circulatory support modalities for acute myocardial infarction associated cardiogenic shock in patients undergoing early revascularization

Effectiveness and safety of non-invasive ventilation in the management of cardiogenic shock

Timing of invasive mechanical ventilation and death in critically ill adults with COVID-19: A multicenter cohort study

Comparison Of Outcomes In Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated With Cardiogenic Shock Treated With Ecpella Versus Va-ecmo With Iabp

Direct comparison of mechanical circulatory support devices in porcine model of acute myocardial infarction complicated by ventricular septal defect and cardiogenic shock

Impact of Left Ventricular Venting on Acute Brain Injury in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: An Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry Analysis

Propofol vs etomidate for induction prior to invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with acute myocardial infarction