BACKGROUND: Mortality for refractory cardiogenic shock (RCS) remains high. However, with improving mechanical circulatory support device (MCSD) technology, the treatment options for RCS patients are expanding. We report on a recent 5-year single-center experience with MCSD for treatment of RCS. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of adult patients who required an MCSD due to RCS in the past 5 years. We excluded those patients with post-cardiotomy shock and post-transplant cardiac graft dysfunction. In the setting of RCS, a short-term ventricular assist device (VAD) was inserted as a bridge-to-decision device. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) was chosen in cases of unknown neurologic status, complete hemodynamic collapse or severe coagulopathy. RESULTS: From January 2007 through January 2012, 90 patients received an MCSD for RCS, 21 (23%) of whom had active cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The etiology of RCS included acute myocardial infarction in 49% and acute decompensated heart failure in 27%. Mean age was 53±14 years, 71% were male, and 60% had an intra-aortic balloon pump. The initial approach utilized was short-term VAD in 49% and VA ECMO in 51%. Median length of support was 8 days (IQR 4 to 18 days). Exchange to implantable VAD was performed in 26% of patients. Other destinations included myocardial recovery in 18% and heart transplantation in 11%. Survival to hospital discharge was 49%. Multivariate analysis showed ongoing CPR to be an independent risk factor for mortality (OR = 5.79, 95% CI 1.285 to 26.08, p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: In the current era, roughly half of the patients who need an MCSD for RCS survive, and roughly half of these survivors require an implantable VAD. Ongoing CPR is predictive of in-hospital mortality.
BACKGROUND: Mortality for refractory cardiogenic shock (RCS) remains high. However, with improving mechanical circulatory support device (MCSD) technology, the treatment options for RCS patients are expanding. We report on a recent 5-year single-center experience with MCSD for treatment of RCS. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of adult patients who required an MCSD due to RCS in the past 5 years. We excluded those patients with post-cardiotomy shock and post-transplant cardiac graft dysfunction. In the setting of RCS, a short-term ventricular assist device (VAD) was inserted as a bridge-to-decision device. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) was chosen in cases of unknown neurologic status, complete hemodynamic collapse or severe coagulopathy. RESULTS: From January 2007 through January 2012, 90 patients received an MCSD for RCS, 21 (23%) of whom had active cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The etiology of RCS included acute myocardial infarction in 49% and acute decompensated heart failure in 27%. Mean age was 53±14 years, 71% were male, and 60% had an intra-aortic balloon pump. The initial approach utilized was short-term VAD in 49% and VA ECMO in 51%. Median length of support was 8 days (IQR 4 to 18 days). Exchange to implantable VAD was performed in 26% of patients. Other destinations included myocardial recovery in 18% and heart transplantation in 11%. Survival to hospital discharge was 49%. Multivariate analysis showed ongoing CPR to be an independent risk factor for mortality (OR = 5.79, 95% CI 1.285 to 26.08, p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: In the current era, roughly half of the patients who need an MCSD for RCS survive, and roughly half of these survivors require an implantable VAD. Ongoing CPR is predictive of in-hospital mortality.
Authors: Philipp Pichler; Herwig Antretter; Martin Dünser; Stephan Eschertzhuber; Roman Gottardi; Gottfried Heinz; Gerhard Pölzl; Ingrid Pretsch; Angelika Rajek; Andrä Wasler; Daniel Zimpfer; Alexander Geppert Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2015-03-28 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Alain Combes; Dan Brodie; Yih-Sharng Chen; Eddy Fan; José P S Henriques; Carol Hodgson; Philipp M Lepper; Pascal Leprince; Kunihiko Maekawa; Thomas Muller; Sebastian Nuding; Dagmar M Ouweneel; Antoine Roch; Matthieu Schmidt; Hiroo Takayama; Alain Vuylsteke; Karl Werdan; Laurent Papazian Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-05-03 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Aditya Bansal; Jay K Bhama; Rajan Patel; Sapna Desai; Stacy A Mandras; Hamang Patel; Tyrone Collins; John P Reilly; Hector O Ventura; P Eugene Parrino Journal: Ochsner J Date: 2016
Authors: Iosif Taleb; Antigone G Koliopoulou; Anwar Tandar; Stephen H McKellar; Joseph E Tonna; Jose Nativi-Nicolau; Miguel Alvarez Villela; Frederick Welt; Josef Stehlik; Edward M Gilbert; Omar Wever-Pinzon; Jack H Morshedzadeh; Elizabeth Dranow; Craig H Selzman; James C Fang; Stavros G Drakos Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 29.690