Hanson Ivan D, Palomo Andres, Tawney Adam, Dixon Simon R, Bentley Dana, Naidu Srihari S, Basir Mir B, O'Neill William W
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Corewell Health William Beaumont University Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan.
Abiomed, Danvers, Massachusetts.
J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2025 Jan 7;4(2):102462. doi: 10.1016/j.jscai.2024.102462. eCollection 2025 Feb.
The present analysis reports characteristics and outcomes of Society of Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) stage E shock patients with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMICS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) who improved to stage C or D within 24 hours of Impella support ("responders") vs those patients who remained in stage E ("nonresponders").
The SCAI shock stage was assigned prior to initiation of Impella, and a second SCAI shock classification was performed within 24 hours of Impella support. SCAI shock stage was assigned independently by 2 reviewers; in cases where there was a discrepancy, a third reviewer adjudicated the stage assignment. Criteria such as a low pH (≤7.1), the need for multiple vasopressors/mechanical circulatory support devices, or the need for cardiopulmonary resuscitation were used to define stage E shock.
Of the 415 RECOVER III patients, 298 presented in stage E shock; 152 (51.1%) were responders and 145 (48.8%) were nonresponders. Kaplan-Meier 30-day survival estimates were 56.9% and 28.6% in responders and nonresponders, respectively ( < .001). In multivariate analysis, fewer inotropic medications during Impella support ( < .0001), more lesions treated ( = .01), Impella support initiated pre-PCI ( = .03), and baseline white blood cell ( = .048) were all significant predictors for responsiveness to therapy.
Stage E patients who improved to stage C/D within 24 hours of Impella support had significantly better survival than those who remained in stage E. Predictors of responsiveness to therapy were mostly related to shock treatment strategy, and not baseline characteristics. This suggests that whether stage E patients will improve with Impella support is difficult to determine at the time support is initiated, and the SCAI shock stage should be repeated within 24 hours to more accurately determine the prognosis.
本分析报告了接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的心血管造影和介入学会(SCAI)E期心源性休克急性心肌梗死(AMICS)患者在接受Impella支持24小时内改善至C期或D期(“反应者”)与仍处于E期(“无反应者”)患者的特征和结局。
在开始使用Impella之前确定SCAI休克分期,并在Impella支持24小时内进行第二次SCAI休克分类。SCAI休克分期由2名审阅者独立确定;如有分歧,由第三名审阅者裁定分期。采用低pH值(≤7.1)、需要多种血管加压药/机械循环支持装置或需要心肺复苏等标准来定义E期休克。
在415例RECOVER III患者中,298例表现为E期休克;152例(51.1%)为反应者,145例(48.8%)为无反应者。反应者和无反应者的Kaplan-Meier 30天生存率估计分别为56.9%和28.6%(P<0.001)。多变量分析显示,在Impella支持期间使用的血管活性药物较少(P<0.0001)、治疗的病变较多(P=0.01)、在PCI前开始使用Impella支持(P=0.03)以及基线白细胞计数(P=0.048)都是治疗反应性的显著预测因素。
在Impella支持24小时内改善至C/D期得E期患者的生存率明显高于仍处于E期的患者。治疗反应性的预测因素大多与休克治疗策略有关,而非基线特征。这表明在开始支持时很难确定E期患者是否会因Impella支持而改善,应在24小时内重复进行SCAI休克分期以更准确地确定预后。