Comparison of Mortality Risk Models in Patients with Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock and Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support

被引:3
|
作者
Chatzis, Georgios [1 ]
Markus, Birgit [1 ]
Syntila, Styliani [1 ]
Waechter, Christian [1 ]
Luesebrink, Ulrich [1 ]
Ahrens, Holger [1 ]
Divchev, Dimitar [1 ]
Schieffer, Bernhard [1 ]
Karatolios, Konstantinos [1 ]
机构
[1] Philipps Univ Marburg, Dept Cardiol Angiol & Intens Care, Marburg, Germany
关键词
HOSPITAL CARDIAC-ARREST; ACUTE MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION; EXTRACORPOREAL MEMBRANE-OXYGENATION; PREDICTING SURVIVAL; MANAGEMENT; OUTCOMES; DEVICE; RETURN; SCORE;
D O I
10.1155/2021/8843935
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background. Although scoring systems are widely used to predict outcomes in postcardiac arrest cardiogenic shock (CS) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI), data concerning the accuracy of these scores to predict mortality of patients treated with Impella in this setting are lacking. Thus, we aimed to evaluate as well as to compare the prognostic accuracy of acute physiology and chronic health II (APACHE II), simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II), sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA), the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), CardShock, the prediction of cardiogenic shock outcome for AMI patients salvaged by VA-ECMO (ENCOURAGE), and the survival after venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (SAVE) score in patients with OHCA refractory CS due to an AMI treated with Impella 2.5 or CP. Methods. Retrospective study of 65 consecutive Impella 2.5 and 32 CP patients treated in our cardiac arrest center from September 2015 until June 2020. Results. Overall survival to discharge was 44.3%. The expected mortality according to scores was SOFA 70%, SAPS II 90%, IABP shock 55%, CardShock 80%, APACHE II 85%, ENCOURAGE 50%, and SAVE score 70% in the 2.5 group; SOFA 70%, SAPS II 85%, IABP shock 55%, CardShock 80%, APACHE II 85%, ENCOURAGE 75%, and SAVE score 70% in the CP group. The ENCOURAGE score was the most effective predictive model of mortality outcome presenting a moderate area under the curve (AUC) of 0.79, followed by the CardShock, APACHE II, IABP, and SAPS score. These derived an AUC between 0.71 and 0.78. The SOFA and the SAVE scores failed to predict the outcome in this particular setting of refractory CS after OHCA due to an AMI. Conclusion. The available intensive care and newly developed CS scores offered only a moderate prognostic accuracy for outcomes in OHCA patients with refractory CS due to an AMI treated with Impella. A new score is needed in order to guide the therapy in these patients.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Temporary mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock
    Obradovic, Danilo
    Freund, Anne
    Feistritzer, Hans-Josef
    Sulimov, Dmitry
    Loncar, Goran
    Abdel-Wahab, Mohamed
    Zeymer, Uwe
    Desch, Steffen
    Thiele, Holger
    PROGRESS IN CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES, 2021, 69 : 35 - 46
  • [22] Early Escalation of Mechanical Circulatory Support Stabilizes and Potentially Rescues Patients in Refractory Cardiogenic Shock
    Tongers, Joern
    Sieweke, Jan-Thorben
    Kuehn, Christian
    Napp, L. Christian
    Flierl, Ulrike
    Roentgen, Philipp
    Schmitto, Jan D.
    Sedding, Daniel G.
    Haverich, Axel
    Bauersachs, Johann
    Schaefer, Andreas
    CIRCULATION-HEART FAILURE, 2020, 13 (03) : E005853
  • [23] Effects of Escalating Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients With Worsening Cardiogenic Shock
    Isseh, Iyad N.
    Gorgis, Sarah
    Dagher, Carina
    Sharma, Shivani
    Basir, Mir B.
    Parikh, Sachin
    TEXAS HEART INSTITUTE JOURNAL, 2022, 49 (06)
  • [24] Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients Without Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
    Miller, P. Elliott
    Gordon, Aliza S.
    Liu, Ying
    Ahmad, Tariq
    Bromfield, Samantha G.
    Girotra, Saket
    Davila, Carlos D.
    Crawford, Geoffrey
    Whitney, John
    Desai, Nihar R.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION, 2025, 14 (02):
  • [25] Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock
    Ferrari, M. W.
    MEDIZINISCHE KLINIK-INTENSIVMEDIZIN UND NOTFALLMEDIZIN, 2019, 114 (01) : 77 - 90
  • [26] Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock: Shock Team or Bust?
    Kim, Daniel H.
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2020, 36 (02) : 197 - 204
  • [27] Complications of Temporary Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock: An Appraisal of Contemporary Literature
    Subramaniam, Anna V.
    Barsness, Gregory W.
    Vallabhajosyula, Saarwaani
    Vallabhajosyula, Saraschandra
    CARDIOLOGY AND THERAPY, 2019, 8 (02) : 211 - 228
  • [28] Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support in PosteMyocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Chahdi, Hamza Ouazani
    Berbach, Lea
    Boivin-Proulx, Laurie-Anne
    Hillani, Ali
    Noiseux, Nicolas
    Matteau, Alexis
    Mansour, Samer
    Gobeil, Francois
    Nauche, Benedicte
    Jolicoeur, E. Marc
    Potter, Brian J.
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2022, 38 (10) : 1525 - 1538
  • [29] Contemporary trends in use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with acute MI and cardiogenic shock
    Helgestad, Ole Kristian Lerche
    Josiassen, Jakob
    Hassager, Christian
    Jensen, Lisette Okkels
    Holmvang, Lene
    Udesen, Nanna Louise Junker
    Schmidt, Henrik
    Ravn, Hanne Berg
    Moller, Jacob Eifer
    OPEN HEART, 2020, 7 (01):
  • [30] Acute Biventricular Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock
    Kuchibhotla, Sudeep
    Esposito, Michele L.
    Breton, Catalina
    Pedicini, Robert
    Mullin, Andrew
    O'Kelly, Ryan
    Anderson, Mark
    Morris, Dennis L.
    Batsides, George
    Ramzy, Danny
    Grise, Mark
    Duc Thinh Pham
    Kapur, Navin K.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION, 2017, 6 (10):