Suppr超能文献

脓毒症相关性心源性休克伴或不伴急性心肌梗死患者的临时机械循环支持。

Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Sepsis-Associated Cardiogenic Shock With and Without Acute Myocardial Infarction.

机构信息

Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, The Queen's Medical Center, Honolulu, HI.

Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, NY.

出版信息

J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2024 Jan;38(1):207-213. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2023.09.026. Epub 2023 Sep 23.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To describe the current use and outcomes of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with sepsis-associated cardiogenic shocks with and without acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the United States.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

The National Inpatient Sample database from 2017 to 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients with sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock with and without AMI.

INTERVENTIONS

Temporary MCSs, including intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Multivariate logistic regression analyses adjusting for patient characteristics, organ failures, and socioeconomic status. Although the uses of IABP and pLVAD were associated with significantly lower odds of in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock (IABP: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.73, p < .001; pLVAD: aOR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45-0.98, p = .037), ECMO was not (aOR 1.51, 95% CI 0.93-2.45, p = 0.096). In the subgroup with AMI, temporary MCSs were not associated with significantly lower or higher odds of in-hospital mortality. In the subgroup without AMI, IABP was associated with significantly lower odds of in-hospital mortality (aOR 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.65, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although temporary MCS is deemed to be a feasible option in sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock, the selection of the right patients whose shock is driven mainly by cardiogenic shock rather than septic shock, as represented by low cardiac output and high systemic vascular resistance, plays a critical role in the feasibility of this approach in the absence of clinical trials.

摘要

目的

描述美国脓毒症相关性心源性休克伴或不伴急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者中,临时机械循环支持(MCS)的使用现状和结局。

设计

回顾性队列研究。

设置

2017 年至 2019 年国家住院患者样本数据库。

参与者

脓毒症相关性心源性休克伴或不伴 AMI 的成年患者。

干预措施

临时 MCS,包括主动脉内球囊泵(IABP)、经皮左心室辅助装置(pLVAD)和体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)。

测量和主要结果

采用多变量逻辑回归分析,调整患者特征、器官衰竭和社会经济状况。尽管 IABP 和 pLVAD 的使用与脓毒症相关性心源性休克患者院内死亡率的降低显著相关(IABP:调整后的优势比 [aOR] 0.57,95%CI 0.44-0.73,p<0.001;pLVAD:aOR 0.66,95%CI 0.45-0.98,p=0.037),但 ECMO 则不然(aOR 1.51,95%CI 0.93-2.45,p=0.096)。在伴有 AMI 的亚组中,临时 MCS 与院内死亡率的降低或升高无关。在不伴有 AMI 的亚组中,IABP 与院内死亡率的降低显著相关(aOR 0.43,95%CI 0.28-0.65,p<0.001)。

结论

尽管临时 MCS 被认为是脓毒症相关性心源性休克的一种可行选择,但选择主要由心源性休克而不是由败血症休克驱动的合适患者(表现为低心输出量和高全身血管阻力),在没有临床试验的情况下,对这种方法的可行性起着至关重要的作用。

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