Stent choice in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction likely does not affect mortality or reinfarction.

Evidence-Based Medicine Pub Date : 2017-12-01 Epub Date: 2017-11-04 DOI:10.1136/ebmed-2017-110841
Talla A Rousan, Udho Thadani
{"title":"Stent choice in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction likely does not affect mortality or reinfarction.","authors":"Talla A Rousan, Udho Thadani","doi":"10.1136/ebmed-2017-110841","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Commentary on:  Ledwoch J, Fuernau G, Desch S, et al . Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. Heart 2017;103:1177–84.\n\nEarly revascularisation improves acute and long-term outcomes of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). However, which type of stent to use for revascularisation remains controversial. Earlier small single-centre non-randomised study and registry data concluded that a drug-eluting stent (DES) is superior to a bare metal stent (BMS) as it improved clinical outcomes in these patients.1 2 Current European Society Guidelines recommend the use of DES, while American Society guidelines do not. This study examined the impact of BMS versus DES use on clinical outcomes in patients who had participated in the previously reported the Intra-aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) in Cardiogenic Shock II Trial (IABP-SHOCK II) which showed …","PeriodicalId":12182,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/ebmed-2017-110841","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2017-110841","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/11/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Commentary on:  Ledwoch J, Fuernau G, Desch S, et al . Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. Heart 2017;103:1177–84. Early revascularisation improves acute and long-term outcomes of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). However, which type of stent to use for revascularisation remains controversial. Earlier small single-centre non-randomised study and registry data concluded that a drug-eluting stent (DES) is superior to a bare metal stent (BMS) as it improved clinical outcomes in these patients.1 2 Current European Society Guidelines recommend the use of DES, while American Society guidelines do not. This study examined the impact of BMS versus DES use on clinical outcomes in patients who had participated in the previously reported the Intra-aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) in Cardiogenic Shock II Trial (IABP-SHOCK II) which showed …
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心源性休克并发急性心肌梗死的支架选择可能不会影响死亡率或再梗死。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Don't put off until tomorrow what you can do today: Early cholecystectomy is cost-effective in symptomatic cholelithiasis requiring hospitalization. Intensive glucose control in patients with diabetes prevents onset and progression of microalbuminuria, but effects on end-stage kidney disease are still uncertain. Prophylactic platelet transfusion does not reduce risk of clinical bleeding in adults with dengue and thrombocytopaenia. A meta-analysis of positive airway pressure treatment for cardiovascular prevention: why mix apples and pears? Long-acting reversible contraception acceptability and satisfaction is high among adolescents.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1