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] Impact of mechanical circulatory support devices on mortality in a prospective registry of patients with cardiogenic shock
    Monastyrski, A.
    Neus Bellera Gotarda, N.
    Vidal, M.
    Domingo, E.
    Buera, I.
    Azpiroz, P.
    Otaegui, I.
    Serra, B.
    Calabuig, A.
    Riera, J.
    Uribarri, A.
    Barrabes, J.
    Ferreira, N.
    Sabate, M.
    Garcia Del Blanco, B.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEART FAILURE, 2023, 25 : 346 - 346
  • [22] Multidisciplinary approach and early use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in patients with cardiogenic shock
    Venuti, A.
    Gramegna, M.
    Baldetti, L.
    Calvo, F.
    Pazzanese, V
    Sacchi, S.
    Cappelletti, M. A.
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2020, 41 : 1239 - 1239
  • [23] Percutaneous Mitral Repair for Patients in Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Inotropes and Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support
    Cheng, Richard
    Dawkins, Sam
    Hamilton, Michele A.
    Makar, Moody
    Hussaini, Asma
    Azarbal, Babak
    Patel, Jignesh K.
    Kobashigawa, Jon A.
    Trento, Alfredo
    Makkar, Raj R.
    Kar, Saibal
    JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2019, 12 (23) : 2440 - 2441
  • [24] GENDER INEQUALITY IN USE OF PERCUTANEOUS MECHANICAL CIRCULATORY SUPPORT IN PATIENTS WITH CARDIOGENIC SHOCK - CALL FOR ACTION
    Bhardwaj, Anju
    Kumar, Sachin
    Park, Jong Kun
    Kwak, Min Ji
    Rajapreyar, Indranee
    Nair, Ajith
    Baran, David A.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2023, 81 (08) : 725 - 725
  • [25] Mechanical Circulatory Support for Patients With Acute Cardiogenic Shock.
    Yanagida, R.
    Rajagopalan, N.
    Hoopes, C.
    TRANSPLANTATION, 2014, 98 : 422 - 422
  • [26] MECHANICAL CIRCULATORY SUPPORT DEVICES IN PATIENTS WITH NONISCHEMIC CARDIOGENIC SHOCK
    Veerabattini, Naresh
    Patlolla, Sri Harsha
    Arteaga, Cristopher
    Cheetirala, Sivaramakrishna
    Kandlakunta, Sriharsha
    Kuchkuntla, Aravind R.
    CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2024, 52
  • [27] Mechanical Circulatory Support for Patients With Acute Cardiogenic Shock.
    Yonagida, R.
    Rajagopalan, N.
    Hoopes, C.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION, 2014, 14 : 422 - 422
  • [28] Revascularisation and mechanical circulatory support in patients with ischaemic cardiogenic shock
    Maznyczka, Annette M.
    Ford, Thomas J.
    Oldroyd, Keith G.
    HEART, 2019, 105 (17) : 1364 - 1374
  • [29] Gender Differences in the Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support
    Bravo-Jaimes, Katia
    Mejia, Miluska Olenka
    Abelhad, Nadia Isabel
    Zhou, Yelin
    Jumean, Marwan Faris
    Nathan, Sriram
    Dhoble, Abhijeet
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2022, 174 : 20 - 26
  • [30] Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Heart Failure Complicated with Cardiogenic Shock
    Xenitopoulou, Maria Parthena
    Ziampa, Kyriaki
    Evangeliou, Alexandros P.
    Tzikas, Stergios
    Vassilikos, Vasileios
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2024, 13 (09)