Impact of the Timing of Mechanical Circulatory Support on the Outcomes in Myocardial Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Subanalysis of the PREPARE CS Registry

被引:1
|
作者
Prunea, Dan M. [1 ,2 ]
Bachl, Eva [1 ]
Herold, Lukas [1 ]
Schnur, Sadeek S. Kanoun [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Paetzold, Sascha [1 ]
Altmanninger-Sock, Siegfried [1 ]
Sommer, Gudrun A. [1 ]
Glantschnig, Theresa [1 ]
Kolesnik, Ewald [1 ]
Wallner, Markus [1 ]
Ablasser, Klemens [1 ]
Bugger, Heiko [1 ]
Buschmann, Eva [1 ]
Praschk, Andreas [1 ]
Fruhwald, Friedrich M. [1 ]
Schmidt, Albrecht [1 ]
von Lewinski, Dirk [1 ]
Toth, Gabor G. [1 ]
机构
[1] Med Univ Graz, Dept Cardiol, A-8010 Graz, Austria
[2] Univ Med & Pharm Iuliu Ha?ieganu, Niculae Stancioiu Heart Inst, Cluj Napoca 400347, Romania
[3] Univ Szeged, Fac Med, Doctoral Sch Clin Med, H-6720 Szeged, Hungary
[4] Royal Devon Univ Healthcare NHS Fdn Trust, Exeter EX2 5DW, England
关键词
cardiogenic shock; mechanical circulatory support; myocardial infarction; mechanical circulatory support timing; in-hospital mortality; MANAGEMENT; PUMP;
D O I
10.3390/jcm13061552
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
(1) Background: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in myocardial infarction-associated cardiogenic shock is subject to debate. This analysis aims to elucidate the impact of MCS's timing on patient outcomes, based on data from the PREPARE CS registry. (2) Methods: The PREPARE CS prospective registry includes patients who experienced cardiogenic shock (SCAI classes C-E) and were subsequently referred for cardiac catheterization. Our present analysis included a subset of this registry, in whom MCS was used and who underwent coronary intervention due to myocardial infarction. Patients were categorized into an Upfront group and a Procedural group, depending on the timing of MCS's introduction in relation to their PCI. The endpoint was in-hospital mortality. (3) Results: In total, 71 patients were included. MCS was begun prior to PCI in 33 (46%) patients (Upfront), whereas 38 (54%) received MCS during or after the initiation of PCI (Procedural). The groups' baseline characteristics and hemodynamic parameters were comparable. The Upfront group had a higher utilization of the Impella (R) device compared to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (67% vs. 33%), while the Procedural group exhibited a balanced use of both (50% vs. 50%). Most patients suffered from multi-vessel disease in both groups (82% vs. 84%, respectively; p = 0.99), and most patients required a complex PCI procedure; the latter was more prevalent in the Upfront group (94% vs. 71%, respectively; p = 0.02). Their rates of complete revascularization were comparable (52% vs. 34%, respectively; p = 0.16). Procedural CPR was significantly more frequent in the Procedural group (45% vs. 79%, p < 0.05); however, in-hospital mortality was similar (61% vs. 79%, respectively; p = 0.12). (4) Conclusions: The upfront implantation of MCS in myocardial infarction-associated CS did not provide an in-hospital survival benefit.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Clinical use and impact of mechanical circulatory support for myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock in the Netherlands: a registry-based propensity-matched analysis
    Bogerd, Margriet
    Griffioen, Alexander M.
    Bunge, Jeroen J. H.
    Peters, Elma J.
    Ten Berg, Sanne
    Timmermans, Marijke J. C.
    Kraaijeveld, Adriaan O.
    Lipsic, Erik
    Otterspoor, Luuk C.
    Bleeker, Gabe
    Montero-Cabezas, Jose M.
    Sjauw, Krischan D.
    Meuwissen, Martijn
    Dubois, Eric A.
    van Geuns, Robert-Jan M.
    Henriques, Jose P. S.
    OPEN HEART, 2025, 12 (01):
  • [2] Outcomes of mechanical circulatory support for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock
    Kim, Yeunjung
    Shapero, Kayle
    Ahn, Shawn S.
    Goldsweig, Andrew M.
    Desai, Nihar
    Altin, S. Elissa
    CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2021, : 658 - 663
  • [3] Diabetes mellitus, revascularization and outcomes in elderly patients with myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock
    Gual, Miquel
    Ariza-Sole, Albert
    Garcia Marquez, Maria
    Fernandez, Cristina
    Bernal, Jose L.
    Formiga, Francesc
    Barrionuevo, Maria-Isabel
    Sanchez-Salado, Jose C.
    Lorente, Victoria
    Pascual, Julia
    Llao, Isaac
    Alegre, Oriol
    Cequier, Angel
    Elola, Javier
    JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC CARDIOLOGY, 2020, 17 (10) : 604 - 611
  • [4] Gender Disparities on the Use and Outcomes of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction
    Diaz-Arocutipa, Carlos
    Gamarra-Valverde, Norma Nicole
    Salguero, Rafael
    Martin-Asenjo, Roberto
    Vicent, Lourdes
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2024, 233 : 65 - 73
  • [5] Different Mechanical Circulatory Support Strategies for Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock A Subanalysis of the ECLS-SHOCK Trial
    Feistritzer, Hans-Josef
    Zeymer, Uwe
    Ouarrak, Taoufik
    Akin, Ibrahim
    Rassaf, Tienush
    Lehmann, Ralf
    Eitel, Ingo
    Seidler, Tim
    Skurk, Carsten
    Clemmensen, Peter
    Voigt, Ingo
    Seyfarth, Melchior
    Linke, Axel
    Tigges, Eike
    Jung, Christian
    Lauten, Philipp
    Poess, Janine
    Schneider, Steffen
    Desch, Steffen
    Freund, Anne
    Thiele, Holger
    JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2025, 18 (06) : 691 - 701
  • [6] Mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock
    Al-atta, Ayman
    Zaidan, Mohammad
    Abdalwahab, Ahmed
    Asswad, Amjad Ghazal
    Egred, Mohaned
    Zaman, Azfar
    Alkhalil, Mohammad
    REVIEWS IN CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE, 2022, 23 (02)
  • [7] Racial Disparities in the Utilization and Outcomes of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock
    Vojjini, Rahul
    Patlolla, Sri Harsha
    Cheungpasitporn, Wisit
    Kumar, Arnav
    Sundaragiri, Pranathi R.
    Doshi, Rajkumar P.
    Jaffe, Allan S.
    Barsness, Gregory W.
    Holmes, David R.
    Rab, S. Tanveer
    Vallabhajosyula, Saraschandra
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2021, 10 (07)
  • [8] Mechanical Circulatory Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock: Review and Recent Updates
    Saggu, Jay S.
    Seelhammer, Troy G.
    Esmaeilzadeh, Sarvie
    Roberts, John A.
    Radosevich, Misty A.
    Ripoll, Juan G.
    Soto, Juan C. Diaz
    Wieruszewski, Patrick M.
    Bohman, J. Kyle K.
    Wittwer, Erica
    Archie, Chinyere
    Nemani, Lakshmi
    Nabzdyk, Christoph G. S.
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOTHORACIC AND VASCULAR ANESTHESIA, 2025, 39 (04) : 1049 - 1066
  • [9] Timing of mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Attachaipanich, Tanawat
    Attachaipanich, Suthinee
    Kaewboot, Kotchakorn
    AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL PLUS: CARDIOLOGY RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 2025, 50
  • [10] Early Utilization of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: The National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative
    Basir, Mir B.
    Lemor, Alejandro
    Gorgis, Sarah
    Patel, Kirit C.
    Kolski, Brian C.
    Bharadwaj, Aditya S.
    Todd, Joshua W.
    Tehrani, Behnam N.
    Truesdell, Alexander G.
    Lasorda, David M.
    Lalonde, Thomas A.
    Kaki, Amir
    Schrieber, Theodore L.
    Patel, Nainesh C.
    Senter, Shaun R.
    Gelormini, Joseph L.
    Marso, Steven P.
    Rahman, Ayaz M.
    Federici, Robert E.
    Wilkins, Charles E.
    Thomas McRae, A.
    Nsair, Ali
    Caputo, Christopher P.
    Khuddus, Matheen A.
    Chahin, Juan J.
    Dupont, Allison G.
    Goldsweig, Andrew M.
    Lim, Michael J.
    Kapur, Navin K.
    Wohns, David H. W.
    Zhou, Yueren
    Hacala, Michael J.
    O'Neill, William W.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION, 2023, 12 (23):