Recurrent Cardiogenic Shock Associated with Cannabis Use: Report of a Case and Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: The United States has recently undergone increases in the legalization and use of marijuana. There have been previous reports on the association of cannabis use and myocardial dysfunction, however, few on the association with acute stress cardiomyopathy and cardiogenic shock. CASE REPORT: This is a case of a 58-year-old female with a history of inhaled cannabis use, no history of diabetes, and no known history of cardiac disease, that illustrates an association between cannabis use and the recurrent development of stress cardiomyopathy and cardiogenic shock. A review of medical records was performed from two hospitalizations and subsequent outpatient follow-up for similar presentations 6 years apart and review of literature regarding cannabis use and its association with cardiac dysfunction. In separate hospitalizations, the patient presented with clinical findings of cardiogenic shock, severe left ventricular dysfunction with morphologic features of stress cardiomyopathy, and normal coronary angiography. Laboratory results included elevated cardiac biomarkers and urine tetrahydrocannabinol levels > 300 ng/mL. The patient required intensive cardiovascular support, but recovered with normal cardiac function after each event. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: As use of cannabis becomes more prevalent, it will be important for physicians to recognize the potential association of cannabis use and acute myocardial dysfunction, and how early treatment may contribute to salutary outcomes.

Factors Associated With Ineligibility for PCI Differ Between Inpatient and Outpatient ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

OBJECTIVES: Without early revascularization, both inpatient and outpatient STEMIs have poor outcomes. Reasons for denying PCI for STEMI, however, remain uncertain. This single-center retrospective cohort study compares factors and outcomes associated with ineligibility for PCI between inpatients and outpatients following ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS: A total of 1,759 STEMI patients between June 2009 and January 2015 were assessed. Individual medical records were reviewed to obtain reasons for PCI ineligibility for STEMI patients who did not receive reperfusion therapy. RESULTS: Compared to outpatients with STEMI (n = 1,688), inpatients (n = 71) were less likely to receive coronary angiography (60.6% vs 95.9%; P < 0.001) or PCI (50.7% vs 80.9%; P < 0.001), with longer ECG/door to first device activation times (97 [78, 131] vs 63 [49, 78] minutes; P < 0.001). When coronary angiography was performed, however, similar rates of PCI and procedural success were seen in both groups. Principal contraindication for PCI was risk of bleeding within the inpatient population and complex coronary artery disease within the outpatient population. Total in-hospital mortality was higher in inpatient STEMIs compared to outpatients (42.2% vs 10.0%; P < 0.001), but lower for patients eligible for PCI in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Reasons for PCI ineligibility differ between inpatient and outpatient STEMIs. Inpatients have increased risks of bleeding, lower coronary angiography and PCI use, and higher in-hospital mortality. Especially for inpatients, specific PCI STEMI protocols that anticipate and overcome types of ineligibility and delay for cardiac catheterization may improve outcomes.