Echocardiographic Predictors of Survival and Response to Early Revascularization in Cardiogenic Shock
Jump to

Figures
Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival up to 1 year after randomization for 4 combinations of LVEF and MR (log-rank test P=0.0001). Total n=90; MR 0/1 and LVEF ≥28%, n= 33; MR 0/1 and LVEF <28%, n= 20; MR 2/3/4 and LVEF ≥28%, n= 16; MR 2/3/4 and LVEF <28%, n= 21.
Figure 2. Estimated 1-year survival by treatment assignment. LVEF measured within 24 hours of randomization (before any revascularization attempt) is significantly associated with 1-year survival (P=0.025). Tick marks at top and bottom of plot indicate raw data values for ERV and IMS groups, respectively.
Figure 3. Association between MR grade, treatment assignment, and 1-year survival.
Tables
TABLE 1. Characteristics of Trial Patients With Early Echocardiograms
ERV (n=82) IMS (n=87) Age, y 65±10 65±12 Male, % 70 76 Transfer admission, % 62 64 Median time, h MI to shock 4.9 5.0 MI to randomization 10.8 12.1 Randomization to echocardiogram 0.2 0.6 Prior MI, % 29 35 History of hypertension, % 49 42 Diabetes, % 43 20 History of congestive heart failure, % 3.8 4.8 Renal insufficiency, % 9.6 4.9 Prior CABG, % 1.2 9.2 Prior PTCA, % 1.0 4.7 TABLE 2. Clinical Characteristics of Patients With Early Echocardiograms
ERV (n=82) IMS (n=87) *Often obtained while patient was receiving supportive measures. Anterior index MI, % 65 54 Multiple MI locations on ECG, % 53 57 Median creatine kinase, IU/L 3228 4000 Lowest prerandomization systolic blood pressure, mm Hg 68±15 70±10 Systolic blood pressure, mm Hg* 91±24 88±18 Heart rate, bpm 100±22 97±23 Pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, mm Hg* 25±7 23±7 Cardiac index, L · min−1 · m−2* 2.0±0.8 1.8±0.5 Left main coronary artery disease, % 20.5 13.3 No. of diseased vessels, % n=79 n=60 ≤1 13.9 13.3 2 21.5 28.3 3 64.6 58.3 TABLE 3. Baseline Echocardiographic Findings
Total (n=140)* ERV (n=53) IMS (n=87) WMS indicates wall-motion score. *Minimum total sample size=95 because of parameters that could not be assessed. P=0.004 for LV thrombus; no other findings in table differed significantly by treatment assignment. LV end-diastolic volume, mL 114±43 123±48 109±39 LV end-systolic volume, mL 81±36 87±39 77±34 LVEF, % 30.6±11.3 30.4±12.1 30.7±10.9 Diastolic sphericity index 0.50±0.09 0.51±0.09 0.49±0.09 Systolic sphericity index 0.46±0.11 0.46±0.10 0.46±0.11 RV area change, % 33.1±14.5 34.3±13.4 32.2±15.3 LV thrombus, % 16.8 2.8 25.4 MR grade 1.3±0.9 1.4±0.9 1.3±1.0 MR <2, % 60.9 59.1 62.0 MR ≥2, % 39.1 40.9 38.0 Total WMS 37.5±11.2 38.4±9.8 36.9±12.1 WMS index (total/No. of segments) 2.1±0.4 2.2±0.5 2.1±0.4 WMS index, infarct zone 2.6±0.3 2.6±0.3 2.6±0.3 WMS index, remote zone 0.9±0.3 0.9±0.3 0.9±0.3 Remote zone hyperkinesis, % 36.6 31.7 39.4 TABLE 4. Univariate Predictors of 1-Year Survival
n Dead Alive Odds Ratio (95% CI) P *Per 20-mL increase. †Per 5% increase. End-diastolic volume, mL 100 122±42 103±43 1.26* (1.02, 1.54) 0.029 End-systolic volume, mL 99 88±34 70±36 1.38* (1.08, 1.78) 0.012 LVEF, % 99 28±11 34±11 0.79† (0.65, 0.96) 0.015 MR <2 vs ≥2 114 2/3/4 MR: 31% survival 0/1 MR: 58% survival 3.05 (1.38, 6.74) 0.006 LVEF <28% 99 <28%, 24% survival ≥28%, 56% survival 3.86 (1.63, 9.19) 0.002
This Issue
Jump to
Article Tools
- Echocardiographic Predictors of Survival and Response to Early Revascularization in Cardiogenic ShockMichael H. Picard, Ravin Davidoff, Lynn A. Sleeper, Lisa A. Mendes, Christopher R. Thompson, Vladimir Dzavik, Richard Steingart, Ken Gin, Harvey D. White and Judith S. Hochman for the SHOCK TrialCirculation. 2003;107:279-284, originally published January 21, 2003https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000045667.11911.F6
Citation Manager Formats
Share this Article
- Echocardiographic Predictors of Survival and Response to Early Revascularization in Cardiogenic ShockMichael H. Picard, Ravin Davidoff, Lynn A. Sleeper, Lisa A. Mendes, Christopher R. Thompson, Vladimir Dzavik, Richard Steingart, Ken Gin, Harvey D. White and Judith S. Hochman for the SHOCK TrialCirculation. 2003;107:279-284, originally published January 21, 2003https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000045667.11911.F6Permalink:










