Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Brown University, Lifespan Cardiovascular Center, Providence, RI.
J Card Fail. 2024 Apr;30(4):564-575. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2023.09.003. Epub 2023 Oct 9.
Consensus recommendations for cardiogenic shock (CS) advise transfer of patients in need of advanced options beyond the capability of "spoke" centers to tertiary/"hub" centers with higher capabilities. However, outcomes associated with such transfers are largely unknown beyond those reported in individual health networks.
To analyze a contemporary, multicenter CS cohort with the aim of comparing characteristics and outcomes of patients between transfer (between spoke and hub centers) and nontransfer cohorts (those primarily admitted to a hub center) for both acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) and heart failure-related HF-CS. We also aim to identify clinical characteristics of the transfer cohort that are associated with in-hospital mortality.
The Cardiogenic Shock Working Group (CSWG) registry is a national, multicenter, prospective registry including high-volume (mostly hub) CS centers. Fifteen U.S. sites contributed data for this analysis from 2016-2020.
Of 1890 consecutive CS patients enrolled into the CSWG registry, 1028 (54.4%) patients were transferred. Of these patients, 528 (58.1%) had heart failure-related CS (HF-CS), and 381 (41.9%) had CS related to acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS). Upon arrival to the CSWG site, transfer patients were more likely to be in SCAI stages C and D, when compared to nontransfer patients. Transfer patients had higher mortality rates (37% vs 29%, < 0.001) than nontransfer patients; the differences were driven primarily by the HF-CS cohort. Logistic regression identified increasing age, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, and higher number of vasoactive drugs prior to or within 24 hours after CSWG site transfer as independent predictors of mortality among HF-CS patients. Conversely, pulmonary artery catheter use prior to transfer or within 24 hours of arrival was associated with decreased mortality rates. Among transfer AMI-CS patients, BMI > 28 kg/m, worsening renal failure, lactate > 3 mg/dL, and increasing numbers of vasoactive drugs were associated with increased mortality rates.
More than half of patients with CS managed at high-volume CS centers were transferred from another hospital. Although transfer patients had higher mortality rates than those who were admitted primarily to hub centers, the outcomes and their predictors varied significantly when classified by HF-CS vs AMI-CS.
对于心源性休克(CS),专家共识建议将需要接受“轮辐”中心能力范围之外的高级治疗方案的患者转往具有更高能力的三级/“枢纽”中心。然而,除了个别医疗网络报告的结果外,这种转院的预后情况在很大程度上是未知的。
分析当代多中心 CS 患者队列,旨在比较急性心肌梗死(AMI-CS)和心力衰竭相关 CS(HF-CS)患者中转院(从轮辐中心到枢纽中心)和非转院(主要收治在枢纽中心)患者的特征和预后。我们还旨在确定转院患者的临床特征与院内死亡率之间的关联。
心源性休克工作组(CSWG)登记处是一个全国性的多中心前瞻性登记处,包括高容量(主要是枢纽)CS 中心。2016 年至 2020 年,美国 15 个站点为这项分析提供了数据。
在 CSWG 登记处纳入的 1890 例连续 CS 患者中,有 1028 例(54.4%)患者被转院。这些患者中,有 528 例(58.1%)患有心力衰竭相关 CS(HF-CS),有 381 例(41.9%)患有与急性心肌梗死(AMI-CS)相关的 CS。与非转院患者相比,抵达 CSWG 站点时,转院患者更有可能处于 SCAI 分期 C 和 D。转院患者的死亡率更高(37% vs 29%,<0.001);这主要是由于 HF-CS 队列的原因。Logistic 回归分析确定,HF-CS 患者中,年龄增长、机械通气、肾脏替代治疗、在 CSWG 站点转院前或转院后 24 小时内使用更多的血管活性药物,是死亡率的独立预测因素。相反,在转院前或到达后 24 小时内使用肺动脉导管与降低死亡率相关。在转院 AMI-CS 患者中,BMI>28kg/m2、肾功能恶化、乳酸>3mg/dL、血管活性药物使用量增加与死亡率升高相关。
在高容量 CS 中心接受治疗的 CS 患者中,超过一半是从其他医院转来的。尽管转院患者的死亡率高于主要收治在枢纽中心的患者,但当按 HF-CS 与 AMI-CS 进行分类时,预后及其预测因素有显著差异。