Division of Cardiology West Virginia University School of Medicine Morgantown WV.
Knight Cardiovascular InstituteOregon Health and Science University Portland OR.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2021 Sep 21;10(18):e021808. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.021808. Epub 2021 Sep 13.
Background There is increasing utilization of cardiogenic shock treatment algorithms. The cornerstone of these algorithms is the use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring (IHM). We sought to compare the in-hospital outcomes in patients who received IHM versus no IHM in a real-world contemporary database. Methods and Results Patients with cardiogenic shock admitted during October 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018, were identified from the National Inpatient Sample. Among this group, we compared the outcomes among patients who received IHM versus no IHM. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. Secondary end points included vascular complications, major bleeding, need for renal replacement therapy, length of stay, cost of hospitalization, and rate of utilization of left ventricular assist devices and heart transplantation. Propensity score matching was used for covariate adjustment. A total of 394 635 (IHM=62 565; no IHM=332 070) patients were included. After propensity score matching, 2 well-matched groups were compared (IHM=62 220; no IHM=62 220). The IHM group had lower in-hospital mortality (24.1% versus 30.6%, <0.01), higher percentages of left ventricular assist devices (4.4% versus 1.3%, <0.01) and heart transplantation (1.3% versus 0.7%, <0.01) utilization, longer length of hospitalization and higher costs. There was no difference between the 2 groups in terms of vascular complications, major bleeding, and the need for renal replacement therapy. Conclusions Among patients with cardiogenic shock, the use of IHM is associated with a reduction in in-hospital mortality and increased utilization of advanced heart failure therapies. Due to the observational nature of the current study, the results should be considered hypothesis-generating, and future prospective studies confirming these findings are needed.
越来越多的人采用心源性休克治疗算法。这些算法的基石是使用有创血流动力学监测(IHM)。我们旨在比较真实世界当代数据库中接受 IHM 与未接受 IHM 的患者的住院期间结局。
从全国住院患者样本中确定了 2015 年 10 月 1 日至 2018 年 12 月 31 日期间因心源性休克入院的患者。在该组患者中,我们比较了接受 IHM 与未接受 IHM 的患者的结局。主要终点是住院期间死亡率。次要终点包括血管并发症、大出血、需要肾脏替代治疗、住院时间、住院费用以及左心室辅助装置和心脏移植的使用率。采用倾向评分匹配进行协变量调整。共纳入 394635 例患者(IHM=62565 例;非 IHM=332070 例)。经倾向评分匹配后,比较了 2 个匹配良好的组(IHM=62220 例;非 IHM=62220 例)。IHM 组的住院期间死亡率较低(24.1%比 30.6%,<0.01),左心室辅助装置(4.4%比 1.3%,<0.01)和心脏移植(1.3%比 0.7%,<0.01)的使用率较高,住院时间较长,费用较高。两组在血管并发症、大出血和需要肾脏替代治疗方面无差异。
在心源性休克患者中,使用 IHM 与降低住院期间死亡率和增加使用先进的心力衰竭治疗方法相关。由于本研究为观察性研究,因此结果应被视为假设产生,需要进一步前瞻性研究来证实这些发现。