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
  • [31] Mortality in cardiogenic shock patients receiving mechanical circulatory support: a network meta-analysis
    Zhang, Qun
    Han, Yu
    Sun, Shukun
    Zhang, Chuanxin
    Liu, Han
    Wang, Bailu
    Wei, Shujian
    BMC CARDIOVASCULAR DISORDERS, 2022, 22 (01)
  • [32] Mortality in cardiogenic shock patients receiving mechanical circulatory support: a network meta-analysis
    Qun Zhang
    Yu Han
    Shukun Sun
    Chuanxin Zhang
    Han Liu
    Bailu Wang
    Shujian Wei
    BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 22
  • [33] Meta-Analysis of Use of Catheter and Mortality in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock on Mechanical Circulatory Support
    Radaideh, Qais
    Abusnina, Waiel
    Ponamgi, Shiva
    Al-Abdouh, Ahmad
    Aboeata, Ahmed
    Kanmanthareddy, Arun
    Alqarqaz, Mohammad
    Dahal, Khagendra
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 2022, 180 : 165 - +
  • [34] Early Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock
    Upadhrasta, Sireesha
    Museedi, Abdulrahman
    Thannoun, Tariq
    Chaanine, Antoine H.
    Le Jemtel, Thierry H.
    CARDIOLOGY IN REVIEW, 2023, 31 (04) : 215 - 218
  • [35] Peripartum Cardiogenic Shock and Mechanical Circulatory Support
    Botti, Giulia
    Thirunavukarasu, Sharmaine
    Ziviello, Francesca
    Chieffo, Alaide
    INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY-REVIEWS RESEARCH RESOURCES, 2023, 18
  • [36] Evidence for Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock
    Bloom, Jason E.
    Hyasat, Kais
    Kirtane, Ajay J.
    JAMA CARDIOLOGY, 2025, 10 (01) : 7 - 8
  • [37] Cardiogenic Shock and Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support
    Khalif, Adnan
    DuMont, Tiffany
    Ranganathan, Karthikeyan
    CRITICAL CARE NURSING QUARTERLY, 2022, 45 (03) : 218 - 224
  • [38] Classification of 90-day mortality risk among patients with cardiogenic shock requiring advanced mechanical circulatory support
    Nakayama, T.
    Unoki, T.
    Anai, M.
    Inamori, T.
    Sato, T.
    Oimatsu, Y.
    Konami, Y.
    Inoue, M.
    Horio, E.
    Kodama, K.
    Taguchi, E.
    Sakamoto, T.
    Nakao, K.
    Koyama, J.
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2024, 45
  • [39] Mechanical circulatory support in the treatment of cardiogenic shock
    Fernando, Shannon M.
    Price, Susanna
    Mathew, Rebecca
    Slutsky, Arthur S.
    Combes, Alain
    Brodie, Daniel
    CURRENT OPINION IN CRITICAL CARE, 2022, 28 (04) : 434 - 441
  • [40] Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock
    Touchan J.
    Guglin M.
    Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2017, 19 (10)