Copyright © 1999 by the European Society of Cardiology.
Frequency and clinical outcome of cardiogenic shock during acute myocardial infarction among patients receiving reteplase or alteplase. Results from GUSTO-III
a Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
b Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH
c Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC
d Columbia University/St. Luke’s/Roosevelt Hospital, New York, NY
e University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, U.S.A.
f Hopital Tenon, Paris, France
g Walter C. Mackenzie Health Center, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
h Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham, U.K.
accepted August 5, 1998
Abstract
Aims
Reteplase has been reported to achieve better patency of the infarct artery than alteplase. As infarct artery patency is strongly associated with survival among patients with cardiogenic shock, we postulated that treatment with reteplase would improve outcomes among shock patients.
Methods
We compared 30-day mortality rates among patients in GUSTO-III who either presented with shock or developed shock after enrolment; all patients received either front-loaded alteplase or reteplase (two bolus doses of 10 MU, 30min apart).
Results
Shock occurred in 260 (5·3%) of 4921 patients randomized to alteplase and 560 (5·5%) of 10138 patients randomized to reteplase. Of these patients, 28 (10·8%) and 55 (9·8%) randomized to alteplase and reteplase, respectively, presented with shock. In-hospital, 35% and 37% of shock patients assigned to alteplase or reteplase, respectively, underwent coronary angiography, with similar rates of percutaneous (
11–13%) or surgical (2–3%) revascularization procedures subsequently performed. Death within 30 days occurred in 169 (65%) and 353 (63%) shock patients randomized to alteplase and reteplase, respectively (P=0·59). Of patients presenting with shock, 64% and 58% of patients randomized to alteplase or reteplase died within 30 days (P=0·59).
Conclusion
Compared with alteplase, reteplase did not improve outcome among patients who presented with shock or developed shock after receiving thrombolytics. The newer-generation thrombolytic agents remain oflimited efficacy in the treatment and prevention of shock.
Key Words: Cardiogenic shock • randomized clinical trial • reteplase • alteplase • thrombolysis
2 Correspondence: David R. Holmes, Jr., Division of Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905, U.S.A.
This study was funded by a grant from Boehringer Mannheim Therapeutics, Mannheim, Germany, and Gaithersburg, MD, U.S.A.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. V. Jeger, D. Radovanovic, P. R. Hunziker, M. E. Pfisterer, J.-C. Stauffer, P. Erne, P. Urban, and for the AMIS Plus Registry Investigators Ten-Year Trends in the Incidence and Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock Ann Intern Med, November 4, 2008; 149(9): 618 - 626. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. V. Jeger, S. M. Harkness, K. Ramanathan, C. E. Buller, M. E. Pfisterer, L. A. Sleeper, J. S. Hochman, and for the SHOCK Investigators Emergency revascularization in patients with cardiogenic shock on admission: a report from the SHOCK trial and registry Eur. Heart J., March 2, 2006; 27(6): 664 - 670. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. M. Ohman and P. P. Chang Improving Quality of Life After Cardiogenic Shock: Do More Revascularization! J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 19, 2005; 46(2): 274 - 276. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. P. Bouki, G. Pavlakis, and E. Papasteriadis Management of Cardiogenic Shock Due to Acute Coronary Syndromes Angiology, March 1, 2005; 56(2): 123 - 130. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
U. Zeymer, A. Vogt, R. Zahn, M. A Weber, U. Tebbe, M. Gottwik, T. Bonzel, J. Senges, K.-L. Neuhaus, and for the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologisch Predictors of in-hospital mortality in 1333 patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): Results of the primary PCI registry of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausarzte (ALKK) Eur. Heart J., February 2, 2004; 25(4): 322 - 328. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. G. Steg, E. Bonnefoy, S. Chabaud, F. Lapostolle, P.-Y. Dubien, P. Cristofini, A. Leizorovicz, P. Touboul, and for the Comparison of Angioplasty and Prehospital Impact of Time to Treatment on Mortality After Prehospital Fibrinolysis or Primary Angioplasty: Data From the CAPTIM Randomized Clinical Trial Circulation, December 9, 2003; 108(23): 2851 - 2856. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. W. Chen, J. G. Canto, L. S. Parsons, E. D. Peterson, K. A. Littrell, N. R. Every, C. M. Gibson, J. S. Hochman, E. M. Ohman, M. Cheeks, et al. Relation Between Hospital Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation Volume and Mortality in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock Circulation, August 26, 2003; 108(8): 951 - 957. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M.G. Lindholm, J. Aldershvile, C. Sundgreen, E. Jorgensen, K. Saunamaki, and S. Boesgaard Effect of early revascularisation in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. A single center experience Eur J Heart Fail, January 1, 2003; 5(1): 73 - 79. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C.H. Davies Revascularization for cardiogenic shock QJM, February 1, 2001; 94(2): 57 - 67. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H.D. White Cardiogenic shock: a more aggressive approach is now warranted Eur. Heart J., December 1, 2000; 21(23): 1897 - 1901. [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Hasdai, R. M. Califf, T. D. Thompson, J. S. Hochman, E. M. Ohman, M. Pfisterer, E. R. Bates, A. Vahanian, P. W. Armstrong, D. A. Criger, et al. Predictors of cardiogenic shock after thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 1, 2000; 35(1): 136 - 143. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|