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
  • [1] Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock
    Morine K.J.
    Kapur N.K.
    Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2016, 18 (1) : 1 - 14
  • [2] Delirium in patients with cardiogenic shock and percutaneous mechanical circulatory support
    Tersalvi, G.
    Seiler, T.
    Winterton, D.
    Attinger-Toller, A.
    Cioffi, G. M.
    Madanchi, M.
    Somm, S.
    Koch, T.
    Moccetti, F.
    Wolfrum, M.
    Toggweiler, S.
    Bloch, A.
    Kobza, R.
    Cuculi, F.
    Bossard, M.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEART FAILURE, 2023, 25 : 343 - 343
  • [3] Delirium in patients with cardiogenic shock and percutaneous mechanical circulatory support
    Tersalvi, Gregorio
    Seiler, Thomas
    Winterton, Dario
    Attinger-Toller, Adrian
    Cioffi, Giacomo Maria
    Madanchi, Mehdi
    Schaffner, Chiara
    Koch, Tanja
    Moccetti, Federico
    Wolfrum, Mathias
    Toggweiler, Stefan
    Bloch, Andreas
    Kobza, Richard
    Cuculi, Florim
    Bossard, Matthias
    SWISS MEDICAL WEEKLY, 2023, 153 : 128S - 129S
  • [4] Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiogenic Shock
    Mandawat, Aditya
    Rao, Sunil V.
    CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2017, 10 (05)
  • [5] Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock
    Alkhouli, Mohamad
    Osman, Mohammed
    Elsisy, Mohamed Farouk A.
    Kawsara, Akram
    Berzingi, Chalak O.
    CURRENT TREATMENT OPTIONS IN CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE, 2020, 22 (02)
  • [6] Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock patients
    Martin-Villen, Luis
    Gomez, Alejandro Adsuar
    Jimenez, Jose Manuel Garrido
    Vela, Jose Luis Perez
    Cabanes, Maria Paz Fuset
    MEDICINA INTENSIVA, 2024, 48 (12) : 714 - 727
  • [7] Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock
    Mohamad Alkhouli
    Mohammed Osman
    Mohamed Farouk A. Elsisy
    Akram Kawsara
    Chalak O. Berzingi
    Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2020, 22 (2)
  • [8] Mechanical circulatory support for patients with cardiogenic shock
    Rab, Tanveer
    O'Neill, William
    TRENDS IN CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE, 2019, 29 (07) : 410 - 417
  • [9] Advanced Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices for Cardiogenic Shock
    Miller, P. Elliott
    Solomon, Michael A.
    McAreavey, Dorothea
    CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2017, 45 (11) : 1922 - 1929
  • [10] Trends, Predictors, and Outcomes of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Postcardiac Surgery Cardiogenic Shock
    Vallabhajosyula, Saraschandra
    Arora, Shilpkumar
    Sakhuja, Ankit
    Lahewala, Sopan
    Kumar, Varun
    Shantha, Ghanshyam P. S.
    Egbe, Alexander C.
    Stulak, John M.
    Gersh, Bernard J.
    Gulati, Rajiv
    Rihal, Charanjit S.
    Prasad, Abhiram
    Deshmukh, Abhishek J.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2019, 123 (03): : 489 - 497