do elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock respond differently to emergent revascularization?
GROUND: In the SHOCK trial, the group of patients aged >or=75 years did not appear to derive the mortality benefit from early revascularization (ERV) versus initial medical stabilization (IMS) that was seen in patients aged <75 years. We sought to determine the reason for this finding by examining the baseline characteristics and outcomes of the 2 treatment groups by age. METHODS: Patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) secondary to left ventricular (LV) failure were randomized to ERV within 6 hours or to a period of IMS. We compared the characteristics by treatment group of patients aged >or=75 years and of their younger counterparts. RESULTS: Of the 56 enrolled patients aged >or=75 years, those assigned to ERV had lower LV ejection fraction at baseline than IMS-assigned patients (27.5% +/- 12.7% vs 35.6% +/- 11.6%, P = .051). In the elderly ERV and IMS groups, 54.2% and 31.3%, respectively, were women ( P = .105) and 62.5% and 40.6%, respectively, had an anterior infarction (P = .177).
Related Questions
- do elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock respond differently to emergent revascularization?
- Does Comorbidity Account for the Excess Mortality in Patients With Major Bleeding in Acute Myocardial Infarction?
- Should the elderly receive thrombolytic therapy, or primary angioplasty, for acute myocardial infarction?
