Kyriakopoulos Christos P, Taleb Iosif, Sideris Konstantinos, Maneta Eleni, Hamouche Rana, Tseliou Eleni, Krauspe Ethan, Selko Sean, Carter Spencer, Jones Tara L, Zhang Chong, Presson Angela P, Dranow Elizabeth, Geer Laura, Stehlik Josef, Selzman Craig H, Goodwin Matthew L, Tonna Joseph E, Hanff Thomas C, Drakos Stavros G
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine University of Utah Health and School of Medicine Salt Lake City UT USA.
Nora Eccles Harrison Cardiovascular Research and Training Institute University of Utah Salt Lake City UT USA.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2025 Feb 18;14(4):e035464. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.124.035464. Epub 2025 Feb 14.
Multidisciplinary teams and regionalized care systems have been suggested to improve cardiogenic shock (CS) outcomes. We sought to identify clinical factors associated with successful outcomes for patients developing CS at an outside healthcare facility (spoke) and being transferred to a quaternary medical center (hub).
Consecutive patients with CS were evaluated (N=1162). Our study cohort comprised 412 patients developing CS at a spoke. Our primary end point was native heart survival (NHS) defined as survival to discharge without receiving advanced heart failure therapies. Secondary end points were survival to discharge, 30-day and 1-year survival after discharge, and adverse events. Association of clinical data with NHS was analyzed using logistic regression. Overall, 246 (59.7%) patients achieved NHS, 125 (30.3%) died, and 41 (10.0%) were discharged after advanced heart failure therapies. Of the 287 patients who were discharged (69.7%), 276 (67.0%) were alive at 30 days, and 250 (60.7%) at 1 year. Patients with NHS less commonly had bleeding or vascular complications or acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy compared with patients who died or received advanced heart failure therapies. Significant multivariable factors associated with NHS likelihood included younger age; shorter length of stay and transfer from a secondary compared with a tertiary/quaternary level of care spoke; absence of cardiac arrest, intubation, or type 3 bleeding; lower vasoactive-inotropic score; higher left ventricular ejection fraction at admission to the hub; and shorter CS onset-to-temporary mechanical circulatory support deployment time.
We identified clinical factors reflecting disease severity and management practices including length of stay and spoke level of care, inotrope/vasopressor utilization, and CS onset-to-temporary mechanical circulatory support deployment time, that might inform the management of patients developing CS at a spoke.
多学科团队和区域化护理系统被认为可改善心源性休克(CS)的治疗结果。我们试图确定在外部医疗机构(分支)发生CS并被转至四级医疗中心(中心)的患者取得成功治疗结果的相关临床因素。
对连续的CS患者进行评估(N = 1162)。我们的研究队列包括412例在分支发生CS的患者。我们的主要终点是自然心脏存活(NHS),定义为未接受晚期心力衰竭治疗而出院的存活情况。次要终点是出院存活、出院后30天和1年存活以及不良事件。使用逻辑回归分析临床数据与NHS的相关性。总体而言,246例(59.7%)患者实现了NHS,125例(30.3%)死亡,41例(10.0%)在接受晚期心力衰竭治疗后出院。在287例出院的患者中(69.7%),276例(67.0%)在30天时存活,250例(60.7%)在1年时存活。与死亡或接受晚期心力衰竭治疗的患者相比,实现NHS的患者较少出现出血或血管并发症或需要肾脏替代治疗的急性肾损伤。与NHS可能性相关的显著多变量因素包括年龄较小;与三级/四级护理分支相比,住院时间较短且从二级护理分支转出;无心脏骤停、插管或3型出血;血管活性药物-正性肌力药物评分较低;中心入院时左心室射血分数较高;以及CS发作至临时机械循环支持部署时间较短。
我们确定了反映疾病严重程度和管理实践的临床因素,包括住院时间和分支护理级别、血管活性药物/血管加压药物的使用以及CS发作至临时机械循环支持部署时间,这些因素可能为在分支发生CS的患者的管理提供参考。