Sundermeyer Jonas, Kellner Caroline, Beer Benedikt N, Dettling Angela, Besch Lisa, Blankenberg Stefan, Eitel Ingo, Frank Derk, Frey Norbert, Graf Tobias, Kirchhof Paulus, Krais Jannis, von Lewinski Dirk, Mangner Norman, Möbius-Winkler Sven, Nordbeck Peter, Orban Martin, Pauschinger Matthias, Sag Can Martin, Scherer Clemens, Skurk Carsten, Thiele Holger, Westermann Dirk, Schrage Benedikt
Department of Cardiology, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Partner Site Hamburg/Lübeck/Kiel, Hamburg, Germany.
Eur J Heart Fail. 2025 Jan;27(1):40-50. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.3498. Epub 2024 Oct 24.
The optimal timing for implementing mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in cardiogenic shock (CS) remains indeterminate. This study aims to evaluate patient characteristics and outcome associated with the time interval between CS onset and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) implementation.
In this study, patients with CS treated with MCS at 15 tertiary care centres in three countries were enrolled. Patients treated with MCS were stratified into early (<2 h), intermediate (2-12 h) and delayed (≥12-24 h) MCS implantation by using the time interval between CS onset and MCS device implementation. Adjusted logistic and Cox regression models were fitted to assess the association between timing of MCS implementation, patient characteristics and 30-day mortality. A total of 330 patients with CS treated with VA-ECMO and/or microaxial flow pump were included in this study; 20.9% received early, 55.8% intermediate, and 23.3% delayed MCS. Although crude 30-day mortality was slightly lower in patients with early MCS (58.1% vs. 64.7% vs. 64.3%), adjusted analyses showed no significant association between timing of MCS implantation and 30-day all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] for early vs. intermediate MCS: 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-1.46, p = 0.74; HR for early vs. delayed MCS: 1.29, 95% CI 0.78-2.13, p = 0.33). Moreover, the incidence of complications, related and unrelated to MCS, did not differ significantly among groups.
In this exploratory study of patients with CS treated with MCS, the timing of device implantation within 24 h after CS onset was not associated with mortality. This supports a restrictive MCS approach, reserving its application for patients experiencing CS deterioration despite conventional therapy.
在心源性休克(CS)中实施机械循环支持(MCS)的最佳时机仍不确定。本研究旨在评估与CS发作至静脉-动脉体外膜肺氧合(VA-ECMO)实施的时间间隔相关的患者特征和结局。
在本研究中,纳入了在三个国家的15个三级医疗中心接受MCS治疗的CS患者。通过使用CS发作至MCS设备实施的时间间隔,将接受MCS治疗的患者分为早期(<2小时)、中期(2-12小时)和延迟(≥12-24小时)MCS植入组。采用调整后的逻辑回归和Cox回归模型来评估MCS实施时机、患者特征与30天死亡率之间的关联。本研究共纳入330例接受VA-ECMO和/或微轴流泵治疗的CS患者;20.9%接受早期MCS,55.8%接受中期MCS,23.3%接受延迟MCS。尽管早期MCS患者的30天粗死亡率略低(58.1%对64.7%对64.3%),但调整分析显示MCS植入时机与30天全因死亡率之间无显著关联(早期与中期MCS的风险比[HR]:0.93,95%置信区间[CI]0.59-1.46,p = 0.74;早期与延迟MCS的HR:1.29,95%CI 0.78-2.13,p = 0.33)。此外,与MCS相关和无关的并发症发生率在各组之间无显著差异。
在这项对接受MCS治疗的CS患者的探索性研究中,CS发作后24小时内的设备植入时机与死亡率无关。这支持了一种限制性的MCS方法,将其应用保留给尽管接受了传统治疗但仍出现CS恶化的患者。