6533b872fe1ef96bd12d2e5f

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Epinephrine Versus Norepinephrine for Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction

Bruno LevyRaphael Clere-jehlAnnick LegrasTristan Morichau-beauchantMarc LeoneGanster FrederiqueJean-pierre QuenotAntoine KimmounAlain CariouJohan LassusVeli-pekka HarjolaFerhat MezianiGuillaume LouisPatrick RossignolKevin DuarteNicolas GirerdAlexandre MebazaaPhilippe VignonMathieu MatteiCarine ThivilierPierre PerezThomas AuchetCaroline FritzJulie Boisrame-helmeEmmanuelle MercierDenis GarotJessica PernySebastien GetteEmmanuelle HammadCoralie VigneAuguste DargentPascal AndreuPhilippe Guiot

subject

MaleInotropeILL PATIENTSCardiac index030204 cardiovascular system & hematologyLACTATE0302 clinical medicine[SDV.MHEP.MI]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Human health and pathology/Infectious diseasesSUPPORTTISSUE OXYGENATIONVasoconstrictor AgentsProspective StudiesMyocardial infarctionCardiogenic shockcardiogenic shockMiddle Aged3. Good healthEpinephrineCardiologyHEARTFemaleTRIALFranceCardiology and Cardiovascular Medicinemedicine.drugmedicine.medical_specialtyShock Cardiogenicacute myocardial infarctionvasopressornorepinephrineEXTRACORPOREAL MEMBRANE-OXYGENATIONNorepinephrine (medication)03 medical and health sciencesDouble-Blind MethodInternal medicineHeart rateMANAGEMENTmedicineHumansepinephrineAgedbusiness.industrySeptic shockMORTALITYSEPTIC SHOCKHemodynamics030208 emergency & critical care medicinemedicine.disease3121 General medicine internal medicine and other clinical medicinebusiness

description

IF 16.834 (2017); International audience; BACKGROUND Vasopressor agents could have certain specific effects in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) after myocardial infarction, which may influence outcome. Although norepinephrine and epinephrine are currently the most commonly used agents, no randomized trial has compared their effects, and intervention data are lacking. OBJECTIVES The goal of this paper was to compare in a prospective, double-blind, multicenter, randomized study, the efficacy and safety of epinephrine and norepinephrine in patients with CS after acute myocardial infarction. METHODS The primary efficacy outcome was cardiac index evolution, and the primary safety outcome was the occurrence of refractory CS. Refractory CS was defined as CS with sustained hypotension, end-organ hypoperfusion and hyperlactatemia, and high inotrope and vasopressor doses. RESULTS Fifty-seven patients were randomized into 2 study arms, epinephrine and norepinephrine. For the primary efficacy endpoint, cardiac index evolution was similar between the 2 groups (p = 0.43) from baseline (H0) to H72. For the main safety endpoint, the observed higher incidence of refractory shock in the epinephrine group (10 of 27 [37%] vs. norepinephrine 2 of 30 [7%]; p = 0.008) led to early termination of the study. Heart rate increased significantly with epinephrine from H2 to H24 while remaining unchanged with norepinephrine (p < 0.0001). Several metabolic changes were unfavorable to epinephrine compared with norepinephrine, including an increase in cardiac double product (p = 0.0002) and lactic acidosis from H2 to H24 (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS In patients with CS secondary to acute myocardial infarction, the use of epinephrine compared with norepinephrine was associated with similar effects on arterial pressure and cardiac index and a higher incidence of refractory shock. (Study Comparing the Efficacy and Tolerability of Epinephrine and Norepinephrine in Cardiogenic Shock [OptimaCC]; NCT01367743) (J AmColl Cardiol 2018; 72: 173-82) (C) 2018 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

10.1016/j.jacc.2018.04.051https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01858896