Suppr超能文献

心源性休克的多学科代码休克团队:加拿大一个中心的经验。

Multidisciplinary Code Shock Team in Cardiogenic Shock: A Canadian Centre Experience.

作者信息

Lee Felicity, Hutson Jordan H, Boodhwani Munir, McDonald Bernard, So Derek, De Roock Sophie, Rubens Fraser, Stadnick Ellamae, Ruel Marc, Le May Michel, Labinaz Marino, Chien Kevin, Garuba Habibat A, Mielniczuk Lisa M, Chih Sharon

机构信息

Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Division of Cardiac Surgery, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

CJC Open. 2020 Mar 27;2(4):249-257. doi: 10.1016/j.cjco.2020.03.009. eCollection 2020 Jul.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with high mortality. We report on a "Shock Team" approach of combined interdisciplinary expertise for decision making, expedited assessment, and treatment.

METHODS

We reviewed 100 patients admitted in CS over 52 months. Patients managed under a Code Shock Team protocol (n = 64, treatment) from 2016 to 2019 were compared with standard care (n = 36, control) from 2015 to 2016. The cohort was predominantly male (78% treatment, 67% control) with a median age of 55 years (interquartile range [IQR], 43-64) for treatment vs 64 years (IQR, 48-69) for control ( 0.01). New heart failure was more common in the treatment group: 61% vs 36%, 0.02. Acute myocardial infarction comprised 13% of patients in CS. There were no significant differences between treatment and control in markers of clinical acuity, including median left ventricular ejection fraction (18% vs 20%), prevalence of moderate-severe right ventricular dysfunction (64% vs 56%), median peak serum lactate (5.3 vs 4.7 mmol/L), acute kidney injury (70% vs 75%), or acute liver injury (50% vs 31%). Inotropes, dialysis, and invasive ventilation were required in 92%, 33%, and 66% of patients, respectively. Temporary mechanical circulatory support was used in 45% of treatment and 28% of control patients ( 0.08). There were no significant differences in median hospital length of stay (17.5 days), 30-day survival (71%), or survival to hospital discharge (66%). Over 240 days (IQR, 14,847) of median follow-up, survival was 67% for treatment vs 42% for control (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.99; 0.03).

CONCLUSION

A multidisciplinary Code Shock Team approach for CS is feasible and may be associated with improved long-term survival.

摘要

背景

心源性休克(CS)与高死亡率相关。我们报告一种采用跨学科专业知识进行决策、快速评估和治疗的“休克团队”方法。

方法

我们回顾了52个月内收治的100例CS患者。将2016年至2019年按照休克团队方案管理的患者(n = 64,治疗组)与2015年至2016年接受标准治疗的患者(n = 36,对照组)进行比较。该队列主要为男性(治疗组78%,对照组67%),治疗组的中位年龄为55岁(四分位间距[IQR],43 - 64岁),而对照组为64岁(IQR,48 - 69岁)(P = 0.01)。新发性心力衰竭在治疗组中更为常见:61% 对36%,P = 0.02。急性心肌梗死占CS患者的13%。在临床严重程度指标方面,治疗组和对照组之间无显著差异,包括中位左心室射血分数(18% 对20%)、中重度右心室功能障碍的患病率(64% 对56%)、中位血清乳酸峰值(5.3对4.7 mmol/L)、急性肾损伤(70% 对75%)或急性肝损伤(50% 对31%)。分别有92%、33%和66%的患者需要使用血管活性药物、进行透析和有创通气。45%的治疗组患者和28%的对照组患者使用了临时机械循环支持(P = 0.08)。中位住院时间(17.5天)、30天生存率(71%)或出院生存率(66%)无显著差异。在中位随访240天(IQR,14 - 847天)期间,治疗组的生存率为67%,而对照组为42%(风险比,0.53;95%置信区间,0.28 - 0.99;P = 0.03)。

结论

针对CS的多学科休克团队方法是可行的,并且可能与改善长期生存相关。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a1ed/7365831/e6e2bce9cf19/gr1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验