This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by White, H. D. Articles by Hochman, J. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by White, H. D. Articles by Hochman, J. S. Related Collections Catheter-based coronary and valvular interventions: other Catheter-based coronary interventions: stents CV surgery: coronary artery disease Acute myocardial infarction Related Article

(Circulation. 2005;112:1992-2001.)
© 2005 American Heart Association, Inc.

Interventional Cardiology

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

Harvey D. White, DSc, FCSANZ; Susan F. Assmann, PhD; Timothy A. Sanborn, MD; Alice K. Jacobs, MD; John G. Webb, MD; Lynn A. Sleeper, ScD; Cheuk-Kit Wong, MD, FCSANZ; James T. Stewart, MD, FCSANZ; Philip E.G. Aylward, MD, FCSANZ; Shing-Chiu Wong, MD; Judith S. Hochman, MD

From Green Lane Cardiovascular Service, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand (H.D.W., J.T.S.); Center for Statistical Analysis and Research, New England Research Institutes Inc, Watertown, Mass (S.F.A., L.A.S.); Division of Cardiology, Evanston Northwestern Healthcare, Evanston, Ill (T.A.S.); Division of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, Boston Medical Centre, Boston, Mass (A.K.J.); Division of Cardiology, St Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (J.G.W.); Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Otago University, Dunedin, New Zealand (C.-K.W.); Cardiac Services, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, South Australia (P.E.G.A.); Division of Cardiology, New York Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY (S.-C.W.); and Cardiovascular Clinical Research Center, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (J.S.H.).

Correspondence to Professor Harvey White, Green Lane Cardiovascular Service, Auckland City Hospital, Private Bag 92024, Auckland 1030, New Zealand. E-mail HarveyW{at}adhb.govt.nz

Received February 13, 2005; revision received June 9, 2005; accepted July 5, 2005.

Background— The Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial demonstrated the survival advantage of emergency revascularization versus initial medical stabilization in patients developing cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. The relative merits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with shock have not been defined. The objective of this analysis was to compare the effects of PCI and CABG on 30-day and 1-year survival in the SHOCK trial.

Methods and Results— Of the 302 trial patients, 128 with predominant left ventricular failure had emergency revascularization. The selection of revascularization procedures was individualized. Eighty-one patients (63.3%) had PCI, and 47 (36.7%) had CABG. The median time from randomization to intervention was 0.9 hours (interquartile range [IQR], 0.3 to 2.2 hours) for PCI and 2.7 hours (IQR, 1.3 to 5.5 hours) for CABG. Baseline demographics and hemodynamics were similar, except that there were more diabetics (48.9% versus 26.9%; P=0.02), 3-vessel disease (80.4% versus 60.3%; P=0.03), and left main coronary disease (41.3% versus 13.0%; P=0.001) in the CABG group. In the PCI group, 12.3% had 2-vessel and 2.5% had 3-vessel interventions. In the CABG group, 84.8% received 2 grafts, 52.2% received 3 grafts, and 87.2% were deemed completely revascularized. The survival rates were 55.6% in the PCI group compared with 57.4% in the CABG group at 30 days (P=0.86) and 51.9% compared with 46.8%, respectively, at 1 year (P=0.71).

Conclusions— Among SHOCK trial patients randomized to emergency revascularization, those treated with CABG had a greater prevalence of diabetes and worse coronary disease than those treated with PCI. However, survival rates were similar. Emergency CABG is an important component of an optimal treatment strategy in patients with cardiogenic shock, and should be considered a complementary treatment option in patients with extensive coronary disease.

Key Words: angioplasty • mortality • myocardial infarction • shock • surgery

Related Article:

Issue Highlights
Circulation 2005 112: 1917. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. H. Mehta, F.-S. Ou, E. D. Peterson, R. E. Shaw, W. B. Hillegass Jr, J. S. Rumsfeld, M. T. Roe, and American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovasc Clinical Significance of Post-Procedural TIMI Flow in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., January 1, 2009; 2(1): 56 - 64. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. E. Hermansen, M. Hansen, M. Roaldsen, S. Muller, O.-J. How, and T. Myrmel Utilization and outcome of coronary revascularization and valve procedures in acute heart failure - an evaluation based on the classification from the European Society of Cardiology Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, October 1, 2008; 7(5): 833 - 838. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. S. Lee, C.-H. Tseng, C. M. Barker, V. Menon, D. Steckman, R. Shemin, and J. S. Hochman Outcome After Surgery and Percutaneous Intervention for Cardiogenic Shock and Left Main Disease Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2008; 86(1): 29 - 34. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. H. Mehta, J. D. Grab, S. M. O'Brien, D. D. Glower, C. K. Haan, J. S. Gammie, E. D. Peterson, and on Behalf of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Nati Clinical Characteristics and In-Hospital Outcomes of Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Insights From the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Database Circulation, February 19, 2008; 117(7): 876 - 885. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. R. Reynolds and J. S. Hochman Cardiogenic Shock: Current Concepts and Improving Outcomes Circulation, February 5, 2008; 117(5): 686 - 697. [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. George and M. C. Oz Myocardial Revascularization after Acute Myocardial Infarction Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 669 - 696. [Full Text]

				S. H Wong, S. Wan, and M. J Underwood Myocardial Revascularization: Surgery or Stenting? Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann, June 1, 2007; 15(3): 264 - 269. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. S. Hochman, L. A. Sleeper, J. G. Webb, V. Dzavik, C. E. Buller, P. Aylward, J. Col, H. D. White, and for the SHOCK Investigators Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. JAMA, June 7, 2006; 295(21): 2511 - 2515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. R. Dixon, C. L. Grines, and W. W. O'Neill The Year in Interventional Cardiology J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., April 18, 2006; 47(8): 1689 - 1706. [Full Text] [PDF]

				CABG vs. PCI in Cardiogenic Shock Journal Watch Cardiology, November 4, 2005; 2005(1104): 4 - 4. [Full Text]