Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: Brian.O'
Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
Am J Cardiol. 2019 Apr 15;123(8):1214-1219. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.01.029. Epub 2019 Jan 25.
The outcomes for patients transferred with cardiogenic shock and later treated with revascularization and Impella support have not previously been studied. To evaluate these outcomes, patients in cardiogenic shock were recruited from the catheter-based ventricular assist device registry, a prospective registry enrolling patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with hemodynamic support using Impella 2.5 or CP. Analysis was performed on subgroups of patients who were characterized as those directly admitted to a tertiary care hospital (direct), or those transferred from an outside hospital (transfer). Patients who were transferred with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMICS) more often presented in shock were in shock longer than 24 hours, and were more likely to be on intra-aortic balloon pump but were less likely to sustain cardiac arrest. The number of pressors, EF, diseased, and treated vessels were similar between the 2 groups. Despite baseline differences, the mortality was similar in the transfer versus direct patients (47.0% vs 53.5% p = 0.19). In a multivariate model, the factors independently associated with 30-day mortality in AMICS treated with revascularization and Impella support were cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (p <0.01), age (p <0.01), and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (p = 0.02). Whether the patient was transferred or directly admittedly with AMICS was not an independent predictor of death. In conclusion, these findings suggest that considerations should be given to transfer patients with AMICS to allow them to be treated in a contemporary manner.
以前从未研究过因心原性休克接受再血管化和 Impella 支持治疗后转院的患者的预后。为了评估这些结果,从基于导管的心室辅助装置登记处招募了心原性休克患者,这是一个前瞻性登记处,招募了接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗并使用 Impella 2.5 或 CP 进行血流动力学支持的患者。对直接收入三级保健医院的患者(直接)或从外院转来的患者(转院)进行亚组分析。与心原性休克(AMICS)相关的转院患者更常出现休克,休克时间超过 24 小时,更可能使用主动脉内球囊泵,但不太可能发生心脏骤停。两组患者的升压药数量、EF 值、病变血管和治疗血管相似。尽管存在基线差异,但转院患者与直接入院患者的死亡率相似(47.0% vs 53.5%,p=0.19)。在多变量模型中,与接受再血管化和 Impella 支持治疗的 AMICS 患者 30 天死亡率相关的独立因素包括心肺复苏(CPR)(p<0.01)、年龄(p<0.01)和 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)(p=0.02)。患者是否因 AMICS 转院或直接入院并不是死亡的独立预测因素。总之,这些发现表明,应考虑将 AMICS 患者转院,以便以现代方式对其进行治疗。