Informação da revista
Vol. 42. Núm. 8.
Páginas 731-732 (agosto 2023)
Partilhar
Partilhar
Baixar PDF
Mais opções do artigo
Vol. 42. Núm. 8.
Páginas 731-732 (agosto 2023)
Editorial comment
Acesso de texto completo
Acute total occlusion of the unprotected left main coronary artery: Solid data on a catastrophic scenario
Oclusão total aguda de tronco comum desprotegido – dados sólidos de um cenário catastrófico
Visitas
1340
Miguel Borges Santos
Hospital Prof. Doutor Fernando Fonseca, Amadora, Portugal
Conteúdo relacionado
João Calvão, Marta Braga, Mariana Brandão, Andreia Campinas, André Alexandre, Ana Amador, Catarina Costa, João C. Silva, Marisa Silva, Bruno Brochado, João Freitas, Filipe Macedo
Este item recebeu
Informação do artigo
Texto Completo
Bibliografia
Baixar PDF
Estatísticas
Texto Completo

There is no lack of evidence of the clinical severity of acute total occlusion of the unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA). Nevertheless, every center has its success stories, with anecdotal evidence of patients who are successfully reperfused and have an uneventful outcome. Given the extremely low number of such cases, robust epidemiological data were clearly missing in the international literature.

In their study published in this issue of the Journal, Calvão et al. collected data from three hospitals in Porto and Gaia in northern Portugal, and described the clinical presentation, management and outcomes of patients with acute total LMCA occlusion in a large database.1 Despite its retrospective nature, this is a solid study that analyzed 11 036 emergent coronary angiographies between 2008 and 2020. In this period, 0.5% of cases were acute total occlusions of the LMCA, confirming the extremely low number of these patients who reach the catheterization laboratory. Unsurprisingly, patients presented with cardiogenic shock or aborted cardiac arrest, and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was attempted in the majority (90%) of cases, with angiographic success in around half (56%) of the procedures.

Patients were young (mean age 61 years), and most presented with chest pain (93%) and ST-segment elevation (81%). Getting these cases to a catheterization laboratory as soon as possible is, of course, a crucial first step. Since nearly 20% did not have ST-segment elevation, a high clinical suspicion is necessary in shock patients with ongoing chest pain or significant ST-segment depression. Although this is clearly stated in the guidelines,2,3 less experienced physicians are likely to benefit from ongoing training on this subject.

Interestingly, mechanical circulatory support was used in 63% of patients, by intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). The use of these devices did not predict short-term prognosis. This is in agreement with the neutral trial results of the 2012 landmark IABP-SHOCK II trial,4 and also the long-awaited results of the ECMO-CS trial, published in November 2022.5 Despite all the hopes of the medical community concerning the benefit of mechanical support devices, it is safe to say that the randomized evidence for their lack of benefit is robust.

Concerning outcomes, in-hospital mortality was 58%, and survivors had a high (92%) one-year life expectancy. These findings are similar to the longstanding figure of 50% mortality for cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction.6,7 This mortality rate varies according to the severity of shock,8 but this fact is not reported by the authors. The five-year life expectancy for in-hospital survivors was also high, at 67%. This figure is in line with the long-term follow-up of the IABP-SHOCK II trial.9 It appears that those who make it through the initial storm enjoy a calm ride thereafter.

In conclusion, Calvão and colleagues are to be praised for filling the literature gap on the outcomes of acute total occlusion of the LMCA. Hopefully, after successful reperfusion, the prognosis of these very severe patients is probably similar to the overall prognosis for cardiogenic shock. After the neutral results of randomized trials for IABP and VA-ECMO, we must continue to rely on the skill and dedication of the interventional cardiology and cardiac intensive care teams.

Conflicts of interest

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.

References
[1]
J. Calvão, J.M. Braga, M. Brandão, et al.
Acute total occlusion of the unprotected left main coronary artery: patient characteristics and outcomes.
Rev Port Cardiol, 42 (2023), pp. 723-729
[2]
B. Ibanez, S. James, S. Agewall, et al.
2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation.
Eur Heart J, 39 (2018), pp. 119-177
[3]
J.-P. Collet, H. Thiele, E. Barbato, et al.
2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation.
Eur Heart J, 42 (2021), pp. 1289-1367
[4]
H. Thiele, U. Zeymer, F.-J. Neumann, et al.
Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.
N Engl J Med, 367 (2012), pp. 1287-1296
[5]
P. Ostadal, R. Rokyta, J. Karasek, et al.
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the therapy of cardiogenic shock: results of the ECMO-CS randomized clinical trial.
Circulation, 147 (2023), pp. 454-464
[6]
M. Shah, S. Patnaik, B. Patel, et al.
Trends in mechanical circulatory support use and hospital mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction and non-infarction related cardiogenic shock in the United States.
Clin Res Cardiol, 107 (2018), pp. 287-303
[7]
A. Siddharth, W.S. Bangalore, L.A. McCoy, et al.
Temporal trends and outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions for cardiogenic shock in the setting of acute myocardial infarction: a report from the CathPCI registry.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 9 (2016), pp. 341-351
[8]
J.C. Jentzer, S. van Diepen, G.W. Barsness, et al.
Cardiogenic shock classification to predict mortality in the cardiac intensive care unit.
J Am Coll Cardiol, 74 (2019), pp. 2117
[9]
H. Thiele, U. Zeymer, N. Thelemann, et al.
Intraaortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: long-term 6-year outcome of the randomized IABP-SHOCK II trial.
Circulation, 139 (2019), pp. 395-403
Copyright © 2023. Sociedade Portuguesa de Cardiologia
Baixar PDF
Idiomas
Revista Portuguesa de Cardiologia
Opções de artigo
Ferramentas
en pt

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos

Ao assinalar que é «Profissional de Saúde», declara conhecer e aceitar que a responsável pelo tratamento dos dados pessoais dos utilizadores da página de internet da Revista Portuguesa de Cardiologia (RPC), é esta entidade, com sede no Campo Grande, n.º 28, 13.º, 1700-093 Lisboa, com os telefones 217 970 685 e 217 817 630, fax 217 931 095 e com o endereço de correio eletrónico revista@spc.pt. Declaro para todos os fins, que assumo inteira responsabilidade pela veracidade e exatidão da afirmação aqui fornecida.