Percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass surgery for cardiogenic shock and multivessel coronary artery disease?

BackgroundDespite advances in treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS), the incidence of this serious complication of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has stayed relatively constant, and rates of mortality, although somewhat improved in recent decades, remain dauntingly high. Although both percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are used in patients with CS with multivessel coronary disease, the optimal revascularization strategy in this setting remains unknown.MethodsWe conducted a literature search and review of English language publications on CS in multiple online medical databases. Studies were included if they were (1) randomized controlled trials or observational cohort studies, (2) single-center or multicenter reports, (3) prospective or retrospective studies, and (4) contained information on PCI and CABG. Non-English language studies were excluded.ResultsOur search retrieved no published findings from randomized clinical trials, and only 4 observational reports evaluating PCI versus CABG. Our review of the limited available data suggests similar mortality rates with CABG and PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary disease complicated by CS.ConclusionsLimited data from observational studies in patients with CS and multivessel disease suggest that CABG should be considered a complementary reperfusion strategy to PCI and may be preferred, especially when complete revascularization with PCI is not possible. Our data highlight the need for large randomized trials to further evaluate the relative benefit of PCI versus CABG in patients with multivessel coronary disease and CS using contemporary surgical and percutaneous techniques.