Preview

Российский кардиологический журнал

Расширенный поиск

Кардиогенный шок — современное состояние проблемы

https://doi.org/10.15829/1560-4071-2019-10-126-136

Полный текст:

Аннотация

На сегодняшний день в среднем у 7-8% пациентов с инфарктом миокарда (ИМ) развивается кардиогенный шок (КШ). Являясь не самым частым осложнением, КШ, тем не менее, занимает лидирующее место в структуре смертности при ИМ. В статье рассматриваются стандартные, а также новые наиболее перспективные подходы к лечению КШ с акцентом на метод механической поддержки кровообращения (МПК). По данным крупных регистров новая тактика применения современных устройств МПК показала свою эффективность в снижении летальности у пациентов с ИМ, осложнившимся КШ. На современном этапе ведется разработка универсальных протоколов лечения КШ, в которых центральное место занимает МПК современными устройствами, осуществляемая по схеме, показавшей свою эффективность.

Об авторах

С. А. Бойцов
ФГБУ Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр кардиологии Минздрава России
Россия

Бойцов Сергей Анатольевич — член-корр. РАН, профессор, доктор медицинских наук, Главный внештатный специалист кардиолог Минздрава России Центрального, Уральского, Сибирского и Дальневосточного федеральных округов генеральный директор



Р. С. Акчурин
ФГБУ Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр кардиологии Минздрава России
Россия

Акчурин Ренат Сулейманович — академик РАН, профессор, доктор медицинских наук, заместитель генерального директора по хирургии, руководитель отдела сердечнососудистой хирургии



Д. В. Певзнер
ФГБУ Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр кардиологии Минздрава России
Россия

Певзнер Дмитрий Вольфович — кандидат медицинских наук, заведующий блоком интенсивной терапии отдела неотложной кардиологии



Р. М. Шахнович
ФГБУ Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр кардиологии Минздрава России
Россия

Шахнович Роман Михайлович — доктор медицинских наук, ведущий научный сотрудник отдела неотложной кардиологии



М. Я. Руда
ФГБУ Национальный медицинский исследовательский центр кардиологии Минздрава России
Россия

Руда Михаил Яковлевич — профессор, доктор медицинских наук, руководитель отдела неотложной кардиологии с 1976 по 2018гг.



Список литературы

1. Harjola VP, Lassus J, Sionis A, et al. Clinical picture and risk prediction of short-term mortality in cardiogenic shock. European Journal of Heart Failure. 2015;17(5):501-509. doi:10.1002/ejhf.260.

2. Anderson ML, Peterson ED, Peng SA, et al. Differences in the Profile, Treatment, and Prognosis of Patients With Cardiogenic Shock by Myocardial Infarction Classification. A Report From NCDR. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. 2013;6:708-15. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000262.

3. Goldberg RJ, Spencer FA, Gore JM, et al. Thirty-Year Trends (1975 to 2005) in the Magnitude of, Management of, and Hospital Death Rates Associated With Cardiogenic Shock in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Population-Based Perspective. Circulation. 2009;119(9):1211-9. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.108.814947.

4. Hunziker L, Radovanovic D, Jeger R, et al. Twenty-Year Trends in the Incidence and Outcome of Cardiogenic Shock in AMIS Plus Registry. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2019;12(4):1-9. doi:10.1161/circinterventions.118.007293.

5. Rathod KS, Koganti S, Iqbal MB, et al. Contemporary trends in cardiogenic shock: Incidence, intra-aortic balloon pump utilisation and outcomes from the London Heart Attack Group. European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care. 2017;7( 1): 16-27. doi:10.1177/2048872617741735.

6. Anderson ML, Peterson ED, Peng SA, et al. Differences in the Profile, Treatment, and Prognosis of Patients With Cardiogenic Shock by Myocardial Infarction Classification. A Report From NCDR. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. 2013;6:708-715. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000262.

7. Hosseiny DA, Moloi S, Chandrasekhar J, et al. Mortality pattern and cause of death in a long-term follow-up of patients with STEMI treated with primary PCI. Open Heart. 2016;3(1):e000405. doi:10.1136/openhrt-2016-000405.

8. Goldberg RJ, Samad NA, Yarzebski J, et al. Temporal Trends in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction. New England Journal of Medicine. 2019;340(15):1162-8. doi:10.1056/nejm199904153401504.

9. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Godfrey E, et al. SHould We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic ShocK: An international randomized trial of emergency PTCA/ CABG—trial design. American Heart Journal. 1999; 137(2):313-21. doi:10.1053/hj.1999.v137.95352.

10. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann F-J, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1287-96. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1208410.

11. Ouweneel DM, Eriksen E, Sjauw KD, et al. Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(3):278-87. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.022.

12. Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, et al. A Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of a Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping for Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock Caused by Myocardial Infarction. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2008;52(19):1584-8. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.065.

13. O'Neill WW, Grines C, Schreiber T, et al. Analysis of outcomes for 15,259 US patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMICS) supported with the Impella® device. American Heart Journal. 2018;202:33-8. doi:10,1016/j.ahj.2018.03.024.

14. O'Neil WW, Schreiber T, Wohns DHW, et al. The Current Use of Impella® 2.5 in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: Results from the USpella Registry. Journal of Interventional Cardiology. 2013;27(1):1-11. doi:10.1111/joic.12080.

15. Basir MB, Schreiber TL, Grines CL, et al. Effect of Early Initiation of Mechanical Circulatory Support on Survival in Cardiogenic Shock. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2017;119(6):845-51. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.11.037.

16. Loehn T, O'Neill WW, Lange B, et al. Long term survival after early unloading with Impella® CP in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care. 2018;204887261881506:1-9. doi:10.1177/2048872618815063.

17. Basir MB, Schreiber T, Dixon S, et al. Feasibility of early mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: The Detroit cardiogenic shock initiative. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2017;91(3):454-61. doi:10.1002/ccd.27427.

18. Tehrani B, Truesdell A, Singh R, et al. Implementation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team and Clinical Outcomes (INOVA-SHOCK Registry): Observational and Retrospective Study. JMIR Res Protoc. 2018;7(6):e160. doi:10.2196/resprot.9761.

19. Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. European Heart Journal. 2019;40:87-165. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394.

20. Sanborn TA, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. 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;42:1373-9. doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(03)01051-9.

21. Alexander JH, Reynolds HR, Stebbins AL, et al. Effect of tilarginine acetate in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: the TRIUMPH randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;297:1657-66. doi:10.1001/jama.29715.joc70035.

22. Mehta RH, Ou FS, Peterson ED, et al. American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Database Registry Investigators. Clinical significance of postprocedural TIMI flow in patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:56-64. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2008.10.006.

23. Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. PCI Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock. 2017;377(25):2419-32. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1710261.

24. Kolte D, Sardar P, Khera S, et al. Culprit vessel-only versus multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: a collaborative meta-analysis. Circulation: Cardiovascular Intervention. 2017;10:005582. doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.005582.

25. Webb JG, Sanborn TA, Sleeper LA, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock in the SHOCK Trial Registry. American Heart Journal. 2001;141(6):964-70. doi:10.1067/mhj.2001.115294.

26. Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group, 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). European Heart Journal. 2018;39(2):119-77. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx393.

27. Mueller H, Ayres SM, Gregory JJ, et al. Hemodynamics, coronary blood flow, and myocardial metabolism in coronary shock; response to l-norepinephrine and isoproterenol. The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 1970;49:1885-902. doi:10.1172/JCI106408.

28. Mueller H, Ayres SM, Giannelli S, et al. Effect of isoproterenol, l-norepinephrine, and intraaortic counterpulsation on hemodynamics and myocardial metabolism in shock following acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1972;45(2):335-51. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.45.2.335.

29. Kantrowitz A, Tjonneland S, Freed PS, et al. Initial clinical experience with intraaortic balloon pumping in cardiogenic shock. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1968;203(2):135-40.

30. Van de Werf F, Bax J, Betriu A, et al. Management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with persistent ST-segment elevation: the Task Force on the Management of ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction of the European Society of Cardiology. European Heart Journal. 2009;29(23):2909-45. doi :10.1093/eurheartj/sup013.

31. Mandawat A, Rao SV. Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiogenic Shock. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2017; 10(5):1-13. doi:10.1161/circinterventions.116.004337.

32. Thiele H, Jobs A, Ouweneel DM, et al. Percutaneous short-term active mechanical support devices in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. European Heart Journal. 2017;38(47):3523-31. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx363.

33. den Uil CA, Daemen J, Lenzen MJ, et al. Pulsatile iVAC 2L circulatory support in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. EuroIntervention. 2017;12(14):1689-96. doi:10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00371.

34. Van Mieghem NM, Daemen J, Lenzen MJ, et al. The PulseCath iVAC 2L® left ventricular assist device: conversion to a percutaneous transfemoral approach. EuroIntervention. 2015;11(7):835-9. doi:10.4244/EIJV11I7A168.

35. Niclauss L, Segesser LK. PulseCath iVAC 3LTM hemodynamic performance for simple assisted flow. Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery. 2011;12(6):912-3. doi:10.1510/icvts.2010.264051.

36. Ouweneel DM, Schotborgh JV, Limpens J, et al. Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Medicine. 2016;42(12):1922-34. doi:10.1007/s00134-016-4536-8.

37. Burkhoff D, Sayer G, Doshi D, et al. Hemodynamics of Mechanical Circulatory Support. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2015;66(23):2663-74. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.201510.017

38. Pappalardo F, Schulte C, Pieri M, et al. Concomitant implantation of Impella® on top of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may improve survival of patients with cardiogenic shock. European Journal of Heart Failure. 2016;19(3):404-12. doi:101002/ejhf.668.

39. Patel SM, Lipinski J, Al-Kindi SG, et al. Simultaneous Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and Percutaneous Left Ventricular Decompression Therapy with Impella® Is Associated with Improved Outcomes in Refractory Cardiogenic Shock. ASAIO Journal. 2018;1:1-8. doi:10.1097/mat.0000000000000767.

40. Vallabhajosyula S, O'Horo JC, Antharam P, et al. Concomitant Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Use in Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2018;11(9):1-10. doi: 10.1161/circinterventions.118.006930.

41. Baran, D. A, Grines CL, Bailey S, et al. SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2019;1-9. doi:10.1002/ccd.28329.

42. Masoudi FA, Ponirakis A, de Lemos JA, et al. Trends in U.S. cardiovascular care. 2016 report from 4 ACC National Cardiovascular Data Registries. Journal of American College of Cardiology. 2017;69:1427-50. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2016.12.005.

43. Median survival of AMICS patients treated at 763 sites supporting>4 AMICS patients with PCI. 4,891 patients total. Data on file. Abiomed Impella® Quality (IQ) Database, AMI/CGS, Apr 1, 2018 — Mar 28, 2019. Danvers, MA: Abiomed.

44. Vetrovec GW, Anderson M, Schreiber T, et al. The cVAD Registry for Percutaneous Temporary Hemodynamic Support A Prospective Registry of Impella Mechanical Circulatory Support Use in High Risk PCI, Cardiogenic Shock and Decompensated Heart Failur. American Heart Journal. 2017;199:115-21. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2017.09.007.

45. Abiomed, Inc. Impella ventricular support systems for use during cardiogenic shock and high-risk pci instructions for use and clinical reference manual. 2018; Document No. 0042-9028, Rev. D.


Для цитирования:


Бойцов С.А., Акчурин Р.С., Певзнер Д.В., Шахнович Р.М., Руда М.Я. Кардиогенный шок — современное состояние проблемы. Российский кардиологический журнал. 2019;(10):126-136. https://doi.org/10.15829/1560-4071-2019-10-126-136

For citation:


Boytsov S.A., Akchurin R.S., Pevzner D.V., Shakhnovich R.M., Ruda M.Y. Cardiogenic shock — the current state of the problem. Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2019;(10):126-136. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15829/1560-4071-2019-10-126-136

Просмотров: 715


Creative Commons License
Контент доступен под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1560-4071 (Print)
ISSN 2618-7620 (Online)