Mechanical circulatory support versus vasopressors alone in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

被引:4
|
作者
Javaid, Awad I. [1 ]
Michalek, Joel E. [2 ]
Gruslova, Aleksandra B. [3 ]
Hoskins, Serene A. [3 ]
Ahsan, Chowdhury H. [1 ]
Feldman, Marc D. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Nevada, Div Cardiovasc Med, Kirk Kerkorian Sch Med, Las Vegas, NV 89154 USA
[2] Univ Texas Hlth San Antonio, Dept Populat Hlth Sci, San Antonio, TX USA
[3] Univ Texas Hlth San Antonio, Dept Med, Div Cardiol, San Antonio, TX USA
关键词
ACS-acute coronary syndrome; CS-cardiogenic shock; Impella; MCS-mechanical circulatory support; PCI-percutaneous coronary intervention; SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT; EARLY INITIATION; IMPELLA; 2.5; MANAGEMENT; SURVIVAL;
D O I
10.1002/ccd.30913
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
BackgroundPrevious studies have compared Impella use to intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Our objective was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI who received Impella (percutaneous left ventricular assist device) without vasopressors, IABP without vasopressors, and vasopressors without mechanical circulatory support (MCS).MethodsWe queried the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) using ICD-10 codes (2015-2018) to identify patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI. We created three propensity-matched cohorts to examine clinical outcomes in patients receiving Impella versus IABP, Impella versus vasopressors without MCS, and IABP versus vasopressors without MCS.ResultsAmong 17,762 patients, Impella use was associated with significantly higher in-hospital major bleeding (31.4% vs. 13.6%; p < 0.001) and hospital charges (p < 0.001) compared to IABP use, with no benefit in mortality (34.1% vs. 26.9%; p = 0.06). Impella use was associated with significantly higher mortality (42.3% vs. 35.7%; p = 0.02), major bleeding (33.9% vs. 22.7%; p = 0.001), and hospital charges (p < 0.001), when compared to the use of vasopressors without MCS. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between IABP use and the use of vasopressor without MCS.ConclusionsIn this analysis of retrospective data of patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI, Impella use was associated with higher mortality, major bleeding, and in-hospital charges when compared to vasopressor therapy without MCS. When compared to IABP use, Impella was associated with no mortality benefit, along with higher major bleeding events and in-hospital charges. A vasopressor-only strategy suggested no difference in clinical outcomes when compared to IABP. This study uses the NIS for the first time to highlight outcomes in AMI-CS patients undergoing PCI when treated with vasopressor support without MCS, compared to Impella and IABP use.
引用
收藏
页码:30 / 41
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Clinical trials of acute mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention
    Whitehead, Evan
    Thayer, Katherine
    Kapur, Navin K.
    CURRENT OPINION IN CARDIOLOGY, 2020, 35 (04) : 332 - 340
  • [22] Editorial: Mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: A friend or a foe?
    Lemor, Alejandro
    Hernandez, Gabriel A.
    CARDIOVASCULAR REVASCULARIZATION MEDICINE, 2025, 70 : 34 - 35
  • [23] Clinical review: mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction
    Matthew E Cove
    Graeme MacLaren
    Critical Care, 14
  • [24] Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock Following an Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review
    Caceres, Manuel
    Esmailian, Fardad
    Moriguchi, Jaime D.
    Arabia, Francisco A.
    Czer, Lawrence S.
    JOURNAL OF CARDIAC SURGERY, 2014, 29 (05) : 743 - 751
  • [25] Which mechanical circulatory support device in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock?
    Vergallo, Rocco
    Pedicino, Daniela
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2022, 43 (39) : 3822 - 3823
  • [26] Clinical review: mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction
    Cove, Matthew E.
    MacLaren, Graeme
    CRITICAL CARE, 2010, 14 (05):
  • [27] Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction; mechanical circulatory support use in the Netherlands
    Bogerd, M.
    Peters, E. J.
    Ten Berg, S.
    Timmermans, M. J. C.
    Engstrom, A. E.
    Otterspoor, L. C.
    Bunge, J. J. H.
    Vlaar, A. P. J.
    Henriques, J. P. S.
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2023, 44
  • [28] Important role of mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock
    Truby, Lauren
    Naka, Yoshifumi
    Kalesan, Bindu
    Ota, Takeyoshi
    Kirtane, Ajay J.
    Kodali, Susheel
    Nikic, Natasha
    Mundy, Lily
    Colombo, Paolo
    Jorde, Ulrich P.
    Takayama, Hiroo
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY, 2015, 48 (02) : 322 - 328
  • [29] Early vs. delayed mechanical circulatory support in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock
    Buda, Kevin G.
    Hryniewicz, Katarzyna
    Eckman, Peter M.
    Basir, Mir B.
    Cowger, Jennifer A.
    Alaswad, Khaldoon
    Mukundan, Srini
    Sandoval, Yader
    Elliott, Andrea
    Brilakis, Emmanouil S.
    Megaly, Michael S.
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL-ACUTE CARDIOVASCULAR CARE, 2024, 13 (05) : 390 - 397
  • [30] Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
    Dhruva, Sanket S.
    Ross, Joseph S.
    Mortazavi, Bobak J.
    Hurley, Nathan C.
    Krumholz, Harlan M.
    Curtis, Jeptha P.
    Berkowitz, Alyssa P.
    Masoudi, Frederick A.
    Messenger, John C.
    Parzynski, Craig S.
    Ngufor, Che G.
    Girotra, Saket
    Amin, Amit P.
    Shah, Nilay D.
    Desai, Nihar R.
    JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2021, 4 (02) : E2037748