Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/ou_press/integrating-the-results-of-the-culprit-shock-trial-in-the-2017-esc-st-OXwtNMBlpv
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Copyright
- Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2018. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
- ISSN
- 0195-668X
- eISSN
- 1522-9645
- DOI
- 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy294
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Spirit of the viewpoint The recent 2017 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI GL).1 included 159 recommendations based on 477 references. Although the field of acute myocardial infarction is highly evidence-based many treatment options have never been tested in prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Under these circumstances the guideline task force (TF) is expected to develop clinically useful recommendations using consensus based on available evidence from small trials or observational studies or plain clinical experience [level of evidence (LOE) C]. In the recent STEMI guidelines, 49% of the recommendations were labelled as LOE C. Many of these LOE C recommendations were acknowledged as relevant areas for future research in the 2017 STEMI GL document.1 Regarding the management of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating STEMI and with severe coronary stenosis apart from the infarct-related artery (IRA), the recent 2017 STEMI GL1 favoured complete revascularization during the index primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), allocating a class of recommendation IIa with LOE C. After the publication of the STEMI GL,1 the ‘Culprit Lesion Only PCI vs. Multivessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock’ (CULPRIT-SHOCK) trial demonstrated that routine complete revascularization during index PCI procedure in this population is harmful.2 In light of this outcome, the 2017 STEMI GL TF considers it important to provide the cardiology community with a viewpoint that can help readers to place these apparent contradictory messages in context and help physicians taking the best therapeutic decision for their patients. A selected group of members of the 2017 STEMI GL TF leading the chapters related to this topic decided to write this document. To get the broadest view of this relevant topic, additional authors were invited to participate in this document, including the principal investigator of CULPRIT-SHOCK (H.T.), the chair of the ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG) (S.W.), and the chair of the upcoming 2018 ESC Myocardial Revascularization GL (F.-J.N.). Complete revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease but no cardiogenic shock: evidence leading to the 2017 recommendation The recommendation for non-IRA PCI in STEMI was significantly modified from the 20123 to the 2017 STEMI GL.1 In the 2012 GL, it was recommended that primary PCI should be limited to the IRA with the exception of cardiogenic shock and persistent ischaemia after PCI of the supposed culprit lesion (Class IIa LOE B).3 Thus, routine PCI of non-IRA was not recommended. The 2017 document proposed that routine PCI of non-IRA severe stenoses should be considered before hospital discharge (Class IIa, LOE A).1 Justification for this change was based on the results of four medium-sized RCTs and several meta-analyses comparing IRA-only PCI vs. complete revascularization in stable STEMI patients4–7 none of which included patients with cardiogenic shock or resuscitated from cardiac arrest. The primary outcome measure was mainly driven by a reduction in repeat revascularization rates. While this might be seen as a self-fulfilled prophecy (i.e. revascularizations already done upfront in the active treatment), meta-analyses also revealed ischaemic outcomes (death or myocardial infarction) were numerically lower in the complete revascularization group in most of the trials.8 The overall low event rate in conjunction with the relatively small size of all trials precluded the demonstration of a clinical benefit beyond repeat revascularizations. For this reason, the class of recommendation for non-IRA PCI before hospital discharge was set in IIa and not in I. Evidence to recommend non-infarct-related artery percutaneous coronary intervention during index procedure in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease and cardiogenic shock In patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock, early revascularization of the IRA improves outcomes.9,10 Up to 80% of patients with STEMI and shock have multivessel disease, and the mortality in these patients is higher than that of those with single-vessel disease.11 Prior to the publication of CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, late in 2017,2 the evidence available on the clinical benefit of complete vs. IRA-only PCI in this population was based on indirect evidence and observational studies. In the SHOCK trial, 40% of patients underwent coronary artery bypass grafting likely extending beyond the IRA revascularization.12 In the Manitoba Cardiogenic Shock Registry, a retrospective multicentre cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing coronary angiography, complete revascularization was identified as an independent predictor for hospital survival in the subgroup of STEMI.13 In the absence of prospective RCTs, these data were considered by the 2012 STEMI GL to recommend non-IRA PCI in STEMI patients with persistent shock after IRA PCI.3 Similarly, the most recent US appropriate-use criteria defined as appropriate to perform immediate PCI of a non-IRA if cardiogenic shock persisted after IRA PCI.14 Owing to the mentioned benefits of non-IRA PCI in STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock and the absence of evidence of harm, the 2017 STEMI GL document maintained the 2012 recommendation for non-IRA in STEMI patients with multivessel disease in cardiogenic shock although the wording was less stringent by eliminating the consideration that this should be done in patients with persistent shock after IRA PCI. The CULPRIT-SHOCK trial The CULPRIT-SHOCK trial is the largest RCT in cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction (62% STEMI) to date comparing IRA-only PCI with immediate PCI of all severe lesions.2 The CULPRIT-SHOCK trial addressed a contemporary, very high-risk patient population. Roughly half of enrolled patients had been resuscitated prior to randomization, and almost one third received some form of haemodynamic support. The primary endpoint (composite of death or severe renal failure leading to renal-replacement therapy at 1 month) was higher in the immediate multivessel PCI than in the IRA-only PCI group (55.4% vs. 45.9%; P = 0.01).2 The results were mainly driven by an absolute 8.2% difference in 30-day all-cause mortality (51.5% vs. 43.3%, P = 0.03). Results were consistent across pre-specified subgroups including all age groups, sex, presence/absence of diabetes, presence/absence of hypertension, STEMI or non-STEMI, anterior/non-anterior STEMI, previous/no previous infarction 2/3-vessel disease, or presence/absence of chronic total occlusion (CTO). In the multivessel PCI group, complete revascularization was achieved in 81.0% of the patients. Staged revascularization was performed in 17.7% of the patients in the IRA-only PCI group, and the cross-over rate was limited (12.5% in the IRA-only PCI group and 9.4% in the multivessel PCI group). The consistent risk estimates for the primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat, per-protocol, and as-treated analyses support the robustness of the findings. It is well known that presence of a CTO is frequent in cardiogenic shock and associated with high mortality.15 At least one CTO was present in 22.4% in the IRA-only PCI arm and in 24.0% in the immediate multivessel PCI arm. In CULPRIT-SHOCK, immediate CTO recanalization was attempted in roughly 50% of patients in the immediate multivessel PCI group and was successful in approximately one-third of attempts. The results for the primary study endpoint were consistent for CTO presence or absence. The mechanisms leading to the higher 30-day mortality in the immediate multivessel PCI group in CULPRIT-SHOCK might be related to the significantly higher amount of contrast medium given (250 cc vs. 190 cc; P < 0.001) with subsequent impairment of renal function. There was a lower estimated glomerular filtration rate in the immediate multivessel PCI group at days 3 and 4, although differences in the incidence of severe renal failure leading to renal-replacement therapy failed to reach conventional levels of statistical significance (11.6% vs. 16.4%; P = 0.07). The higher dose of contrast medium in the immediate multivessel PCI group may also have led to acute left ventricular volume overload with a negative effect on myocardial function and recovery. In addition, the prolonged duration of the multivessel PCI procedure may be hazardous at a time when the patient is haemodynamically compromised. Additional myocardial damage may also have been induced by PCI in non-IRA stable lesions. Interestingly, the 30-day mortality rate in the IRA-only PCI group was nearly identical with that of the SHOCK (Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock) trial performed two decades ago.9,12 This similar mortality rate may be partly explained by the higher risk profile in the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial because patients with single-vessel coronary artery disease were excluded. Position of the task force after the publication of CULPRIT-SHOCK Based on the new robust evidence from the adequately powered CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, it is now the opinion of the 2017 STEMI TF that in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating STEMI, primary PCI should be restricted to the IRA. Immediate multivessel PCI may be justified in the rare cases where the IRA is difficult to identify or incorrectly defined initially or when multiple culprit lesions are identified. Selected cases in which there is a very severe flow-limiting non-IRA stenosis irrigating a large myocardial area may also justify immediate non-IRA PCI. Staged non-IRA PCI might be an option, carefully balancing the benefits and risks of a new procedure with additional contrast loading and risk of complications. The new edition of the ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization will be released this year, incorporating the results of all published data so far. In the meantime, decision making in STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock and multivessel disease should be based on available data from CULPRIT-SHOCK trial taking into consideration the individual patient using medical judgement based on the available evidence. Conclusion Evidence regarding the best approach for cardiogenic shock complicating STEMI and multivessel disease is constantly being generated, and several meta-analyses from non-RCT are being published with mix, even contradictory results to each other.16–18 We have learnt that data from non-randomized, retrospective, and observational studies are potentially affected by important bias and might not represent a real effect. Data from RCT represent the best evidence to guide therapies. The CULPRIT-SHOCK trial is the only RCT performed addressing this issue and demonstrated that routine multivessel PCI during the index procedure in STEMI patients and cardiogenic shock is not safe. Summary key points In patients with cardiogenic shock complicating STEMI and NSTEMI: Primary PCI should routinely be restricted to the IRA Immediate multivessel PCI may be justified if the IRA is difficult to identify or incorrectly defined initially or when multiple culprit lesions are identified. Immediate multivessel PCI may be justified in selected cases in which there is a flow-limiting non-IRA very severe stenosis irrigating a large myocardial area. Staged non-IRA PCI might be an option, carefully balancing the benefits, and risks. Funding Holger Thiele was the PI of the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, which was funded the European Union 7th Framework Program (FP7/2007–2013) and by the German Heart Research Foundation and the German Cardiac Society. Conflict of interest: none declared. Footnotes The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the Editors of the European Heart Journal or of the European Society of Cardiology. References 1 Ibanez B , James S , Agewall S , Antunes MJ , Bucciarelli-Ducci C , Bueno H , Caforio ALP , Crea F , Goudevenos JA , Halvorsen S , Hindricks G , Kastrati A , Lenzen MJ , Prescott E , Roffi M , Valgimigli M , Varenhorst C , Vranckx P , Widimský P , Collet J-P , Kristensen SD , Aboyans V , Baumbach A , Bugiardini R , Coman IM , Delgado V , Fitzsimons D , Gaemperli O , Gershlick AH , Gielen S , Harjola V-P , Katus HA , Knuuti J , Kolh P , Leclercq C , Lip GYH , Morais J , Neskovic AN , Neumann F-J , Niessner A , Piepoli MF , Richter DJ , Shlyakhto E , Simpson IA , Steg PG , Terkelsen CJ , Thygesen K , Windecker S , Zamorano JL , Zeymer U , Windecker S , Aboyans V , Agewall S , Barbato E , Bueno H , Coca A , Collet J-P , Coman IM , Dean V , Delgado V , Fitzsimons D , Gaemperli O , Hindricks G , Iung B , Jüni P , Katus HA , Knuuti J , Lancellotti P , Leclercq C , McDonagh T , Piepoli MF , Ponikowski P , Richter DJ , Roffi M , Shlyakhto E , Simpson IA , Zamorano JL , Chettibi M , Hayrapetyan HG , Metzler B , Ibrahimov F , Sujayeva V , Beauloye C , Dizdarevic-Hudic L , Karamfiloff K , Skoric B , Antoniades L , Tousek P , Terkelsen PChristian. J , Shaheen SM , Marandi T , Niemelä M , Kedev S , Gilard M , Aladashvili A , Elsaesser A , Kanakakis IG , Merkely B , Gudnason T , Iakobishvili Z , Bolognese L , Berkinbayev S , Bajraktari G , Beishenkulov M , Zake I , Lamin HB , Gustiene O , Pereira B , Xuereb RG , Ztot S , Juliebø V , Legutko J , Timóteo AT , Tatu-Chiţoiu G , Yakovlev A , Bertelli L , Nedeljkovic M , Studenčan M , Bunc M , García de Castro AM , Petursson P , Jeger R , Mourali MS , Yildirir A , Parkhomenko A , Gale CP. 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 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed 2 Thiele H , Akin I , Sandri M , Fuernau G , de Waha S , Meyer-Saraei R , Nordbeck P , Geisler T , Landmesser U , Skurk C , Fach A , Lapp H , Piek JJ , Noc M , Goslar T , Felix SB , Maier LS , Stepinska J , Oldroyd K , Serpytis P , Montalescot G , Barthelemy O , Huber K , Windecker S , Savonitto S , Torremante P , Vrints C , Schneider S , Desch S , Zeymer U; CULPRIT-SHOCK Investigators . PCI strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock . N Engl J Med 2017 ; 377 : 2419 – 2432 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed 3 Task Force on the management of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) , Steg PG , James SK , Atar D , Badano LP , Blomstrom-Lundqvist C , Borger MA , Mario D , Dickstein C , Ducrocq K , Fernandez-Aviles G , Gershlick F , Giannuzzi AH , Halvorsen P , Huber S , Juni K , Kastrati P , Knuuti A , Lenzen J , Mahaffey MJ , Valgimigli KW , van 't Hof M , Widimsky A , Zahger PD . ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation . Eur Heart J 2012 ; 33 : 2569 – 2619 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed 4 Wald DS , Morris JK , Wald NJ , Chase AJ , Edwards RJ , Hughes LO , Berry C , Oldroyd KG ; PRAMI Investigators . Randomized trial of preventive angioplasty in myocardial infarction . N Engl J Med 2013 ; 369 : 1115 – 1123 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed 5 Gershlick AH , Khan JN , Kelly DJ , Greenwood JP , Sasikaran T , Curzen N , Blackman DJ , Dalby M , Fairbrother KL , Banya W , Wang D , Flather M , Hetherington SL , Kelion AD , Talwar S , Gunning M , Hall R , Swanton H , McCann GP. Randomized trial of complete versus lesion-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and multivessel disease: the CvLPRIT trial . J Am Coll Cardiol 2015 ; 65 : 963 – 972 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed 6 Engstrøm T , Kelbæk H , Helqvist S , Høfsten DE , Kløvgaard L , Holmvang L , Jørgensen E , Pedersen F , Saunamäki K , Clemmensen P , De Backer O , Ravkilde J , Tilsted H-H , Villadsen AB , Aarøe J , Jensen SE , Raungaard B , Køber L ; DANAMI-PRIMULTI Investigators . Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI): an open-label, randomised controlled trial . Lancet 2015 ; 386 : 665 – 671 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed 7 Smits PC , Abdel-Wahab M , Neumann FJ , Boxma-de Klerk BM , Lunde K , Schotborgh CE , Piroth Z , Horak D , Wlodarczak A , Ong PJ , Hambrecht R , Angeras O , Richardt G , Omerovic E , Compare AI. Fractional flow reserve-guided multivessel angioplasty in myocardial infarction . N Engl J Med 2017 ; 376 : 1234 – 1244 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed 8 Elgendy IY , Mahmoud AN , Kumbhani DJ , Bhatt DL , Bavry AA. Complete or culprit-only revascularization for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized trials . JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2017 ; 10 : 315 – 324 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed 9 Hochman JS , Sleeper LA , Webb JG , Dzavik V , Buller CE , Aylward P , Col J , White HD; SHOCK Investigators . Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction . JAMA 2006 ; 295 : 2511 – 2515 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed 10 Thiele H , Ohman EM , Desch S , Eitel I , de Waha S. Management of cardiogenic shock . Eur Heart J 2015 ; 36 : 1223 – 1230 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed 11 Sanborn TA , Sleeper LA , Webb JG , French JK , Bergman G , Parikh M , Wong SC , Boland J , Pfisterer M , Slater JN , Sharma S , Hochman J; SHOCK Investigators . Correlates of one-year survival inpatients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: angiographic findings from the SHOCK trial . J Am Coll Cardiol 2003 ; 42 : 1373 – 1379 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed 12 Hochman JS , Sleeper LA , Webb JG , Sanborn TA , White HD , Talley JD , Buller CE , Jacobs AK , Slater JN , Col J , McKinlay SM , LeJemtel TH. 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 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed 13 Hussain F , Philipp RK , Ducas RA , Elliott J , Dzavik V , Jassal DS , Tam JW , Roberts D , Garber PJ , Ducas J. The ability to achieve complete revascularization is associated with improved in-hospital survival in cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction: Manitoba cardiogenic SHOCK Registry investigators . Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2011 ; 78 : 540 – 548 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed 14 Patel MR , Calhoon JH , Dehmer GJ , Grantham JA , Maddox TM , Maron DJ , Smith PK. ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2016 appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons . J Am Coll Cardiol 2017 ; 69 : 570 – 591 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed 15 Saad M , Fuernau G , Desch S , Eitel I , de Waha S , Poss J , Ouarrak T , Schneider S , Zeymer U , Thiele H. Prognostic impact of non-culprit chronic total occlusions in infarct-related cardiogenic shock: results of the randomized IABP-SHOCK II trial . EuroIntervention 2017 . pii: EIJ-D-17-00451. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00451 [Epub ahead of print]. 16 de Waha S , Jobs A , Eitel I , Poss J , Stiermaier T , Meyer-Saraei R , Fuernau G , Zeymer U , Desch S , Thiele H. 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 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed 17 Kolte D , Sardar P , Khera S , Zeymer U , Thiele H , Hochadel M , Radovanovic D , Erne P , Hambraeus K , James S , Claessen BE , Henriques JPS , Mylotte D , Garot P , Aronow WS , Owan T , Jain D , Panza JA , Frishman WH , Fonarow GC , Bhatt DL , Aronow HD , Abbott JD. Culprit vessel-only versus multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: a collaborative meta-analysis . Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2017 ; 10 : e005582. Google Scholar PubMed 18 Lee JM , Rhee TM , Hahn JY , Kim HK , Park J , Hwang D , Choi KH , Kim J , Park TK , Yang JH , Song YB , Choi JH , Choi SH , Koo BK , Kim YJ , Chae SC , Cho MC , Kim CJ , Gwon HC , Kim JH , Kim HS , Jeong MH ; KAMIR Investigators . Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock . J Am Coll Cardiol 2018 ; 71 : 844 – 856 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2018. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
Journal
European Heart Journal – Oxford University Press
Published: May 29, 2018