Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting After Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock | Zendy

Harvey D. White | Zendy; Susan F. Assmann | Zendy; Timothy A. Sanborn | Zendy; Alice K. Jacobs | Zendy; John G. Webb | Zendy; Lynn A. Sleeper | Zendy; Cheuk-Kit Wong | Zendy; James T. Stewart | Zendy; Philip E. Aylward | Zendy; Shing–Chiu Wong | Zendy; Judith S. Hochman | Zendy

Open Access

Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting After Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock

Author(s) -

Harvey D. White,

Susan F. Assmann,

Timothy A. Sanborn,

Alice K. Jacobs,

John G. Webb,

Lynn A. Sleeper,

Cheuk-Kit Wong,

James T. Stewart,

Philip E. Aylward,

Shing–Chiu Wong,

Judith S. Hochman

Publication year - 2005

Publication title -

circulation

Language(s) - English

Resource type - Journals

SCImago Journal Rank - 7.795

H-Index - 607

eISSN - 1524-4539

pISSN - 0009-7322

DOI - 10.1161/circulationaha.105.540948

Subject(s) - medicine , cardiogenic shock , conventional pci , cardiology , myocardial infarction , percutaneous coronary intervention , interquartile range , revascularization , artery

The Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial demonstrated the survival advantage of emergency revascularization versus initial medical stabilization in patients developing cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. The relative merits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with shock have not been defined. The objective of this analysis was to compare the effects of PCI and CABG on 30-day and 1-year survival in the SHOCK trial.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.

Having issues? You can contact us here

Accelerating Research