2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2008.12.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
3
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
1
3
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This registry showed that older age (≥75 years) was not an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.46–2.36, P = 0.93), and that there was no significant difference between the older group and the younger one in both in‐hospital mortality (42.2 vs. 33.7%, respectively; P = 0.33) and 1 year mortality (52.6 vs. 46.8%, respectively; P = 0.56). However, probably there was a bias in the selection of patients who underwent PCI [24]: the rate of patients with AMI and CS was quite small (143 out of 3,025 patients, 4.5%) and there was no notice about patients who underwent CABG or were managed medically. Furthermore, left main disease was detected only in 7.5% of elderly patients, a rate lower than that we found in our study and that is reported in the SHOCK registry [8].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…This registry showed that older age (≥75 years) was not an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.46–2.36, P = 0.93), and that there was no significant difference between the older group and the younger one in both in‐hospital mortality (42.2 vs. 33.7%, respectively; P = 0.33) and 1 year mortality (52.6 vs. 46.8%, respectively; P = 0.56). However, probably there was a bias in the selection of patients who underwent PCI [24]: the rate of patients with AMI and CS was quite small (143 out of 3,025 patients, 4.5%) and there was no notice about patients who underwent CABG or were managed medically. Furthermore, left main disease was detected only in 7.5% of elderly patients, a rate lower than that we found in our study and that is reported in the SHOCK registry [8].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Consistently, the rate of PCI increased mostly among patients at higher risk, such as those with STEMI and those aged ≥75 years. In this regard, limited randomized trial data exist to direct our management of cardiogenic shock in older adults with STEMI because they are frequently under‐represented in clinical trials . Data from the SHOCK (Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock) trial suggested that early revascularization was not superior to initial medical stabilization in 30‐day mortality among 56 patients older than 75 years .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This registry showed that older age (!75 years) was not an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.46-2.36, P ¼ 0.93), and that there was no significant difference between the older group and the younger one in both in-hospital mortality (42.2 vs. 33.7%, respectively; P ¼ 0.33) and 1 year mortality (52.6 vs. 46.8%, respectively; P ¼ 0.56). However, probably there was a bias in the selection of patients who underwent PCI [24]: the rate of patients with AMI and CS was quite small (143 out of 3,025 patients, 4.5%) and there was no notice about patients who underwent CABG or were managed medically. Furthermore, left main disease was detected only in 7.5% of elderly patients, a rate lower than that we found in our study and that is reported in the SHOCK registry [8].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%