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.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2024 Jan;38(1):207-213. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2023.09.026. Epub 2023 Sep 23.
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.
Retrospective cohort study.
The National Inpatient Sample database from 2017 to 2019.
Adult patients with sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock with and without AMI.
Temporary MCSs, including intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).
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).
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.
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。
回顾性队列研究。
2017 年至 2019 年国家住院患者样本数据库。
脓毒症相关性心源性休克伴或不伴 AMI 的成年患者。
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)。
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)。
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。