Suppr超能文献

心源性休克中Impella与体外生命支持的比较:倾向评分调整分析

Impella versus extracorporal life support in cardiogenic shock: a propensity score adjusted analysis.

作者信息

Wernly Bernhard, Karami Mina, Engström Annemarie E, Windecker Stephan, Hunziker Lukas, Lüscher Thomas F, Henriques Jose P, Ferrari Markus W, Binnebößel Stephan, Masyuk Maryna, Niederseer David, Abel Peter, Fuernau Georg, Franz Marcus, Kelm Malte, Busch Mathias C, Felix Stephan B, Thiele Holger, Lauten Alexander, Jung Christian

机构信息

Clinic of Internal Medicine II, Department of Cardiology, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.

Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.

出版信息

ESC Heart Fail. 2021 Apr;8(2):953-961. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.13200. Epub 2021 Feb 9.

Abstract

AIMS

The mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS) is high. The role of specific mechanical circulatory support (MCS) systems is unclear. We aimed to compare patients receiving Impella versus ECLS (extracorporal life support) with regard to baseline characteristics, feasibility, and outcomes in CS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a retrospective cohort study including CS patients over 18 years with a complete follow-up of the primary endpoint and available baseline lactate level, receiving haemodynamic support either by Impella 2.5 or ECLS from two European registries. The decision for device implementation was made at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary endpoint of this study was all-cause mortality at 30 days. A propensity score for the use of Impella was calculated, and multivariable logistic regression was used to obtain adjusted odds ratios (aOR). In total, 149 patients were included, receiving either Impella (n = 73) or ECLS (n = 76) for CS. The feasibility of device implantation was high (87%) and similar (aOR: 3.14; 95% CI: 0.18-56.50; P = 0.41) with both systems. The rates of vascular injuries (aOR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.10-3.50; P = 0.56) and bleedings requiring transfusions (aOR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.09-2.10; P = 0.29) were similar in ECLS patients and Impella patients. The use of Impella or ECLS was not associated with increased odds of mortality (aOR: 4.19; 95% CI: 0.53-33.25; P = 0.17), after correction for propensity score and baseline lactate level. Baseline lactate level was independently associated with increased odds of 30 day mortality (per mmol/L increase; OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.14-1.45; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In CS patients, the adjusted mortality rates of both ECLS and Impella were high and similar. The baseline lactate level was a potent predictor of mortality and could play a role in patient selection for therapy in future studies. In patients with profound CS, the type of device is likely to be less important compared with other parameters including non-cardiac and neurological factors.

摘要

目的

心源性休克(CS)的死亡率很高。特定机械循环支持(MCS)系统的作用尚不清楚。我们旨在比较接受Impella与体外膜肺氧合(ECLS)治疗的CS患者的基线特征、可行性和结局。

方法与结果

这是一项回顾性队列研究,纳入年龄超过18岁的CS患者,对主要终点进行完整随访且有可用的基线乳酸水平,这些患者来自两个欧洲注册机构,接受Impella 2.5或ECLS的血流动力学支持。设备植入的决策由治疗医师自行决定。本研究的主要终点是30天全因死亡率。计算使用Impella的倾向评分,并使用多变量逻辑回归获得调整后的优势比(aOR)。总共纳入149例患者,CS患者中73例接受Impella治疗,76例接受ECLS治疗。两种系统的设备植入可行性都很高(87%)且相似(aOR:3.14;95%可信区间:0.18 - 56.50;P = 0.41)。ECLS患者和Impella患者的血管损伤发生率(aOR:0.95;95%可信区间:0.10 - 3.50;P = 0.56)和需要输血的出血发生率(aOR:0.44;95%可信区间:0.09 - 2.10;P = 0.29)相似。在对倾向评分和基线乳酸水平进行校正后,使用Impella或ECLS与死亡率增加的几率无关(aOR:4.19;95%可信区间:0.53 - 33.25;P = 0.17)。基线乳酸水平与30天死亡率增加的几率独立相关(每增加1 mmol/L;OR:1.29;95%可信区间:1.14 - 1.45;P < 0.001)。

结论

在CS患者中,ECLS和Impella的校正死亡率都很高且相似。基线乳酸水平是死亡率的有力预测指标,在未来研究中可能在患者治疗选择中发挥作用。在严重CS患者中,与包括非心脏和神经因素在内的其他参数相比,设备类型可能不太重要。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b969/8006691/423a39448edf/EHF2-8-953-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验