Management of failed thrombolysis after acute myocardial infarction: An overview of current treatment options

Mendoza, Cesar E.; Bhatt, Mehul R.; Virani, Salim S.; Schob, Alan; Levine, Stewart J.; Ferreira, Alexandre; Marchena, Eduardo de

doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.07.116

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 89 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Intravenous fluids, vasopressors, vasodilators, analgesics, phosphodiesterase enzyme inhibitors, diuretics, and natriuretic peptides may all be used for treatment depending on the clinical signs and the cause of such shock. 28,30,31 ■ HEMORRHAGIC SHOCK Hemorrhagic shock is generally precipitated by a traumatic event that results in an acute loss of blood from the intravascular space. Patients who experience hemorrhagic shock severely impair their ability to provide adequate tissue perfusion and oxygenation after blood loss.…”

Section: Neurogenic Shockmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fluid Resuscitation Therapy for Hemorrhagic Shock

Spaniol

Knight²,

Zebley³

et al. 2007

Journal of Trauma Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hemorrhagic shock is a severe life-threatening emergency affecting all organ systems of the body by depriving tissue of sufficient oxygen and nutrients by decreasing cardiac output. This article is a short review of the different types of shock, followed by information specifically referring to hemorrhagic shock. The American College of Surgeons categorized shock into 4 classes: (1) distributive; (2) obstructive; (3) cardiogenic; and (4) hemorrhagic. Similarly, the classes of hemorrhagic shock are grouped by signs and symptoms, amount of blood loss, and the type of fluid replacement. This updated review is helpful to trauma nurses in understanding the various clinical aspects of shock and the current recommendations for fluid resuscitation therapy following hemorrhagic shock.

show abstract

Section: Neurogenic Shockmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fluid Resuscitation Therapy for Hemorrhagic Shock

Spaniol

Knight²,

Zebley³

et al. 2007

Journal of Trauma Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, fibrinolytic therapy was not sure to acquire a total reperfusion and about 30% to 50% of patients with STEMI failed to achieve patency of the infarct related artery (IRA) at 90 min after thrombolytic therapy [3]. Rescue PCI early after failed thrombolysis seems to be as effective and safe as primary PCI by some recent trials [4]. Here, we report a case of STEMI for fibrinolytic therapy and rescue PCI.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival Undergoing Rescue Percutaneous Coronary Intervention under the Support of Intra-aortic Balloon Counter-Pulsation in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock

Li¹

2014

J Clin Exp Cardiolog

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fibrinolytic therapy remains the most common initial therapy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in the U.S. and worldwide. However, an initial fibrinolytic therapy restores normal flow in only about 50% to 60% of STEMI patients in 90 minutes, with even lower success rates in elderly patients or those with cardiogenic shock. Based on the limited data, rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) appears to reduce the risks of recurrent myocardial infarction and possibly death compared to conservative therapy for the patients following unsuccessful fibrinolytic therapy. Here, we present a case with STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock undergoing rescue PCI under the support of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP).

show abstract