Department of Cardiology, John H Stroger Hospital of Cook County, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2024 Sep;104(3):437-443. doi: 10.1002/ccd.31169. Epub 2024 Jul 31.
We aimed to compare outcomes in patients who receive on-site left ventricular mechanical support versus those transferred to other facilities for mechanical support in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with cardiogenic shock.
This retrospective study analyzed data from the 2016 to 2020 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. We identified patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock who received Impella and LVAD placement during their hospital stay. They were divided into two groups: those with in-house (direct) placement and those transferred to higher-level medical centers. The primary goal was to compare mortality rates between these groups.
During the study, 15,934 (75.2%) received in-house left ventricular support, while 5255 (24.8%) were transferred. Mean age (63 vs. 64 years) and female percentage (25 vs. 26%) were similar. The average time from admission to receiving LV support was 0.8 days for direct group versus 2.8 days for transfer group (p < 0.001). Transferred patients had a higher rate of prior heart failure (68 vs. 79%, p < 0.001) and peripheral vascular disease (10 vs. 14%, p < 0.001) but a lower rate of hypertension (23 vs. 17%, p = 0.003). There were no significant differences in other comorbidities. Primary outcome mortality did not significantly differ (44.9 vs. 44.2, p = 0.66). After multivariate analysis, transferred patients had higher rates of ECMO usage, acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, major bleeding, and ischemic stroke. Length of stay (8 vs. 15 days, p < 0.001) and total charges ($391,472 vs. $581,183, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the transferred group.
Among STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock, our study found no significant difference in mortality between patients transferred for and those with on-site LV support. Those transferred patients experienced more complications, longer length of stay, and increased hospital costs.
本研究旨在比较在接受经皮左心室机械辅助治疗的 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)合并心源性休克患者中,就地接受机械辅助治疗与转至其他机构接受机械辅助治疗的患者结局。
本回顾性研究分析了 2016 年至 2020 年全美住院患者样本(NIS)数据库的数据。我们确定了在住院期间接受 Impella 和 LVAD 植入术的 STEMI 合并心源性休克患者。他们被分为两组:就地(直接)放置组和转至更高水平医疗中心组。主要目标是比较两组死亡率。
在研究期间,15934 例(75.2%)接受了就地左心室支持,5255 例(24.8%)转至其他机构。平均年龄(63 岁比 64 岁)和女性比例(25%比 26%)相似。直接组从入院到接受 LV 支持的平均时间为 0.8 天,而转组为 2.8 天(p<0.001)。转组患者既往心力衰竭发生率(68%比 79%,p<0.001)和外周血管疾病发生率(10%比 14%,p<0.001)较高,但高血压发生率(23%比 17%,p=0.003)较低。其他合并症无显著差异。主要结局死亡率无显著差异(44.9%比 44.2%,p=0.66)。多变量分析后,转组患者 ECMO 使用、急性肾损伤、肾脏替代治疗、大出血和缺血性卒中发生率较高。转组患者住院时间(8 天比 15 天,p<0.001)和总费用(391472 美元比 581183 美元,p<0.001)显著更高。
在 STEMI 合并心源性休克患者中,我们的研究发现就地接受左心室支持治疗与转至其他机构接受治疗的患者死亡率无显著差异。转组患者经历了更多的并发症、更长的住院时间和更高的住院费用。