UCIC-Unità di Cure Intensive Cardiologiche Cardiologia 1
Transcription
UCIC-Unità di Cure Intensive Cardiologiche Cardiologia 1
UCIC-Unità di Cure Intensive Cardiologiche Cardiologia 1-Emodinamica Scompenso Cardiaco Avanzato La Terapia dello Shock Cardiogeno, Up Date 2016 Fabrizio Oliva CONVENTION DELLA CARDIOLOGIA LOMBARDA 2016 Grand HotelGardone, Gardone 15-16 Aprile 2016 Presenter Disclosure Information: • Grant/Research support: Orion Pharma,Servier Italia • Speaker’s bureau: Norvartis Pharmaceuticals, Orion Pharma • Consultant/Advisory board: St Jude Medical Shock Cardiogeno Topics • Epidemiologia e Prognosi • Flow Chart Operativa – Rivascolarizzazione • Timing • PCI vs CABG • Multivessel vs Culprit – Terapia Medica – Supporto Meccanico UCIC-Unità di Cure Intensive Cardiologiche Cardiologia 1-Emodinamica UCIC-Unità di Cure Intensive Cardiologiche Cardiologia 1-Emodinamica Harjola VP Harjola VP EJHF 2015 De Luca et al - EJHF 2015 IN-HF Outcome Acute HF: All-cause mortality by clinical profile at entry 38.1% 32.2% 24.0% 23.4% 22.6% 22.6% (n. 164) (n. 814) 15.8% (n. 1855) (n. 239) (n. 42) (n. 501) Oliva et al EJHF 2012 (n. 95) Early Risk Stratification Harjola EJHF 2015 Cardiogenic Shock (CS) in AMI Pathophysiology-Current Concept Trattamento dello Shock che complica l’Infarto Miocardico Thiele H et al, , Eur Heart J 2015 ESC Guidelines on STEMI, Eur Heart J 2012, ESC Guidelines on myocardial rev. Eur Heart J 2014 Trattamento dello Shock che complica NonSTEMI ESC Guidelines on NonSTEMI, Eur Heart J Sep 2015 UCIC-Unità di Cure Intensive Cardiologiche Cardiologia 1-Emodinamica Rivascolarizzazione Timing Timing of Revascularization JACC 2003 UCIC-Unità di Cure Intensive Cardiologiche Cardiologia 1-Emodinamica Rivascolarizzazione PCI vs CABG CABG vs PCI ? Although the mode of revascularization was not randomized in the SHOCK TRIAL, survival was similar in patients treated with PCI and CABG CABG should be reserved for patients with mechanical complications or coronary anatomy not amenable to PCI who have ongoing CS White HD, Assmann SF, Sanborn TA, et al. 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. Circulation. 2005;112:1992–2001 UCIC-Unità di Cure Intensive Cardiologiche Cardiologia 1-Emodinamica Rivascolarizzazione Culprit vs Multivessel Culprit vs Multivessel Mylotte D JACC Int 2013 Immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus culprit lesion intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results of the ALKK-PCI registry. Zeymer U, Hochadel M, Thiele H, Andresen D, Schühlen H, Brachmann J, Elsässer A, Gitt A, Zahn R Aims: Current guidelines recommend immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with cardiogenic shock, despite the lack of randomised trials. We sought to investigate the use and impact on outcome of multivessel PCI in current practice in cardiogenic shock in Germany. Methods and results: Between January 2008 and December 2011 a total of 735 consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock and multivessel coronary artery disease underwent immediate PCI in 41 hospitals in Germany. Of these, 173 (23.5%) patients were treated with immediate multivessel PCI. The acute success of PCI with respect to TIMI 3 flow did not differ between the groups (82.5% versus 79.6%). In-hospital mortality with multivessel PCI and culprit lesion PCI was 46.8% and 35.8%, respectively. In multivariate analysis multivessel PCI was associated with an increased mortality (odds ratio 1.5; 95% confidence interval 1.15-1.84). Conclusions: In current clinical practice in Germany multivessel PCI is used only in one quarter of patients with cardiogenic shock treated with primary PCI. We observed an adverse effect of immediate multivessel PCI. Therefore, a randomised trial is needed to determine the definitive role of multivessel PCI in cardiogenic shock. (Culprit-Shock Trial, NCT01927549) EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology, August 2014 UCIC-Unità di Cure Intensive Cardiologiche Cardiologia 1-Emodinamica Shock TERAPIA FARMACOLOGICA Inotropic/Vasopressor support Inotropic/Vasopressor support Werdan K Russ et al Crit Care Med 2007 Munich, January 22th, 2016 Recommendations for the use of levosimendan in Acute Heart Failure and Cardiogenic Shock complicating ACS: a review and expert consensus opinion • • • • No benefits Type I: ACS + congestion, BP > 120mmHg, HR increased An option Type II: ACS+ low or normal HR, worsening congestion, BP decreasing An option Type III: Large infarction, congestion/ pulmonary oedema, BP decreasing Type IV: Large complicated infarction, BP decreases, diuresis Should be considered decreases, - CS immediately at entry or at early hospitalisation Niemen et Al Submitted UCIC-Unità di Cure Intensive Cardiologiche Cardiologia 1-Emodinamica Shock e IMA SUPPORTO MECCANICO ESC Guidelines Myocardial Revascularization 2014 N Eng J Med 2012; 367: 1287-1296 Lancet 2013; 382; 1638-1645 BUT… • Scenario: CS complicating AMI, early revascularization planned. • Slightly lower mortality compared other trials and registries. • Exclusion of AMI mechanical complications • 87% device implantion after procedure • High rate of catecholamine use (90%) may offset the potential benefit of IABP. • Exclusion criterion of onset shock > 12 h selected for a disease more amenable to revascularization. • Benefit in severe CS is still unsettled UCIC-Unità di Cure Intensive Cardiologiche Cardiologia 1-Emodinamica Trattatamento dello Shock Supporto Circolatorio Meccanico Seyfarth JACC 2008 Sheu J-J Crit Care Med 2010 Trends in MCS in AMI with CS • Strong evidence suggests that IABP does not reduce mortality • Impella CP could be a option in pts that require more than LD vasopressor or multivessel PCI • Reserve ECMO for pts you cannot oxygenate or do not tolerate Impella due to emolysis • MCS should be initiated as early as possible to prevent permanent organ dysfunction Studio AltSHOCK FLOW CHART Dott.Fabrizio Oliva ASST Niguarda Milano Dott.Michele Senni ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII Dott. Emanuele Catena ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco Dott. Elena Corrada Istituto Clinico Humanitas Prof. Stefano Carugo ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo Dott. Francesco Gentile ASST Nord Milano Ospedale Bassini Dott. Federico Pappalardo Ospedale San Raffaele Dott. Marco Negrini ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco Dott. Antonio Mafrici ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo THINK BIG. START SMALL. MOVE FAST Grazie per l’attenzione