Acharya Deepak, Loyaga-Rendon Renzo Y, Pamboukian Salpy V, Tallaj José A, Holman William L, Cantor Ryan S, Naftel David C, Kirklin James K
Section of Advanced Heart Failure, Transplant, and Mechanical Circulatory Support, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Section of Advanced Heart Failure, Transplant, and Mechanical Circulatory Support, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Apr 26;67(16):1871-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.02.025.
Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by acute heart failure or cardiogenic shock have high mortality with conventional management.
This study evaluated outcomes of patients with AMI who received durable ventricular assist devices (VAD).
Patients in the INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) registry who underwent VAD placement in the setting of AMI were included and compared with patients who received VAD for non-AMI indications.
VAD were implanted in 502 patients with AMI: 443 left ventricular assist devices; 33 biventricular assist devices; and 26 total artificial hearts. Median age was 58.3 years, and 77.1% were male. At implantation, 66% were INTERMACS profile 1. A higher proportion of AMI than non-AMI patients had pre-operative intra-aortic balloon pumps (57.6% vs. 25.3%; p < 0.01), intubation (58% vs. 8.3%; p < 0.01), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (17.9% vs. 1.7%, p < 0.01), cardiac arrest (33.5% vs. 3.3%, p < 0.01), and higher-acuity INTERMACS profiles. At 1 month post-VAD, 91.8% of AMI patients were alive with ongoing device support, 7.2% had died on device, and 1% had been transplanted. At 1-year post-VAD, 52% of AMI patients were alive with ongoing device support, 25.7% had been transplanted, 1.6% had left VAD explanted for recovery, and 20.7% had died on device. The AMI group had higher unadjusted early phase hazard (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.24; p = 0.04) and reduced late-phase hazard of death (HR: 0.57; p = 0.04) than the non-AMI group did. After accounting for established risk factors, the AMI group no longer had higher early mortality hazard (HR: 0.89; p = 0.30), but it had lower late mortality hazard (HR: 0.55; p = 0.02).
Patients with AMI who receive VAD have outcomes similar to other VAD populations, despite being more critically ill pre-implantation. VAD therapy is an effective strategy for patients with AMI and acute heart failure or shock in whom medical therapy is failing.
急性心肌梗死(AMI)合并急性心力衰竭或心源性休克的患者采用传统治疗方法时死亡率很高。
本研究评估了接受持久性心室辅助装置(VAD)的AMI患者的预后。
纳入国际机械辅助循环支持机构注册处(INTERMACS)登记的在AMI情况下接受VAD植入的患者,并与因非AMI适应症接受VAD的患者进行比较。
502例AMI患者植入了VAD:443例植入左心室辅助装置;33例植入双心室辅助装置;26例植入全人工心脏。中位年龄为58.3岁,77.1%为男性。植入时,66%为INTERMACS 1型。与非AMI患者相比,AMI患者术前使用主动脉内球囊泵的比例更高(57.6%对25.3%;p<0.01)、插管比例更高(58%对8.3%;p<0.01)、体外膜肺氧合比例更高(17.9%对1.7%,p<0.01)、心脏骤停比例更高(33.5%对3.3%,p<0.01),且INTERMACS分级更高。VAD植入后1个月,91.8%的AMI患者在装置支持下存活,7.2%在装置上死亡,1%已接受移植。VAD植入后1年,52%的AMI患者在装置支持下存活,25.7%已接受移植,1.6%因恢复而取出VAD,20.7%在装置上死亡。AMI组未经调整的早期死亡风险高于非AMI组(风险比[HR]:1.24;p=0.04),晚期死亡风险低于非AMI组(HR:0.57;p=0.04)。在考虑既定风险因素后,AMI组早期死亡风险不再更高(HR:0.89;p=0.30),但晚期死亡风险更低(HR:0.55;p=0.02)。
接受VAD的AMI患者尽管植入前病情更危重,但其预后与其他VAD人群相似。VAD治疗对于药物治疗无效的AMI合并急性心力衰竭或休克患者是一种有效的策略。