Mortality and deciding factors for no revascularization in cardiogenic shock patients; a cross sectional study

Zohaib Akhter, Sajid Hussain, Saba Aijaz, Saadia Sattar, Asad Pathan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the frequency of acute coronary syndrome patients with cardiogenic shock and not undergoing revascularisation, their in- hospital outcome and reasons underlying management decisions. METHODS: The retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted at Tabba Heart Institute, Karachi, and comprised data from July 2013 to December 2017 of acute coronary syndrome with hypotension and not having under gone revascularisation. Data was analyzed using Stata 12.1. RESULTS: Of the 383 patients, 55(14.3%) did not undergo revascularisation. Overall mean age was 63.2±9.8years. Overall mortality was 45(81.8%). Revascularisation was intended in 28(51%) patients of whom 19(68%) died before undergoing cardiac catheterisation. Another 9(32%) patients died after cardiac catheterisation but before revascularisation. Common clinical reasons in the remaining 27(49%) patients not considered for revascularisation were hypoxic brain injury secondary to cardiac arrest, patient refusal, perceived patient frailty, multi-organ failure, sepsis or pre-existing stroke/ malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction not treated by revascularization had a very poor early outcome. In the two-third of patients before treatment was initiated, there was cardiac arrest with failed resuscitation or poor recovery.

Original languageEnglish (UK)
Pages (from-to)1663-1667
Number of pages5
JournalJPMA. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association
Volume69
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2019
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Shock, Cardiogenic, Acute coronary syndrome, Non-revascularised.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Mortality and deciding factors for no revascularization in cardiogenic shock patients; a cross sectional study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this