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
  • [41] Role of acute mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiogenic shock
    Garg, Pankaj
    Hussain, Md Walid Akram
    Sareyyupoglu, Basar
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2023, 39 (SUPPL 1) : 25 - 46
  • [42] Devices for mechanical circulatory support and strategies for their management in cardiogenic shock
    Marin, Federico
    Pighi, Michele
    Pesarini, Gabriele
    Piccoli, Anna
    Ribichini, Flavio
    KARDIOLOGIA POLSKA, 2019, 77 (06) : 589 - 595
  • [43] Mechanical Circulatory Support in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory for Cardiogenic Shock
    Ryan, Matt
    Briceno, Natalia
    Perera, Divaka
    KOREAN CIRCULATION JOURNAL, 2019, 49 (03) : 197 - 213
  • [44] Utilization of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction and High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Interventions
    Asleh, Rabea
    Resar, Jon R.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2019, 8 (08)
  • [45] Tailored Approach to Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock: Strategies to Facilitate Patient Mobilization
    Maigrot, Jean-Luc A.
    Wakefield, Brett. J.
    Donaldson, Chase M.
    Weiss, Aaron J.
    CURRENT CARDIOLOGY REPORTS, 2025, 27 (01)
  • [46] Relationship between the volume of cases and in-hospital mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock receiving short-term mechanical circulatory support
    Araki, Takashi
    Kondo, Toru
    Imaizumi, Takahiro
    Sumita, Yoko
    Nakai, Michikazu
    Tanaka, Akihito
    Okumura, Takahiro
    Yang, Mingming
    Butt, Jawad H.
    Petrie, Mark C.
    Murohara, Toyoaki
    AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL, 2023, 261 : 109 - 123
  • [47] The Impella Device for Acute Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients in Cardiogenic Shock
    Lemaire, Anthony
    Anderson, Mark B.
    Lee, Leonard Y.
    Scholz, Peter
    Prendergast, Thomas
    Goodman, Andrew
    Lozano, Ann Marie
    Spotnitz, Alan
    Batsides, George
    ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2014, 97 (01) : 133 - 138
  • [48] 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
  • [49] Positive Pressure Ventilation in Cardiogenic Shock: Review of the Evidence and Practical Advice for Patients With Mechanical Circulatory Support
    Alviar, Carlos L.
    Rico-Mesa, Juan Simon
    Morrow, David A.
    Thiele, Holger
    Miller, P. Elliott
    Maselli, Diego Jose
    van Diepen, Sean
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2020, 36 (02) : 300 - 312
  • [50] Early Enteral Nutrition Tolerance in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Mechanical Circulatory Support
    Liu, Wen-jun
    Zhong, Jun
    Luo, Jing-chao
    Zheng, Ji-li
    Ma, Jie-fei
    Ju, Min-jie
    Su, Ying
    Liu, Kai
    Tu, Guo-wei
    Luo, Zhe
    FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE, 2021, 8