Literature DB >> 26286905

Use of mechanical circulatory support in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry.

Amneet Sandhu1, Lisa A McCoy2, Smita I Negi2, Irfan Hameed2, Prashant Atri2, Subhi J Al'Aref2, Jeptha Curtis2, Ed McNulty2, H Vernon Anderson2, Adhir Shroff2, Mark Menegus2, Rajesh V Swaminathan2, Hitinder Gurm2, John Messenger2, Tracy Wang2, Steven M Bradley2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the contemporary use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and other mechanical circulatory support (O-MCS) devices in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the setting of cardiogenic shock. METHODS AND
RESULTS: We identified 76 474 patients who underwent PCI in the setting of cardiogenic shock at one of 1429 National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI participating hospitals from 2009 to 2013. Temporal trends and hospital-level variation in the use of IABP and O-MCS were evaluated. No mechanical circulatory support was used in 41 286 (54%) patients, 29 730 (39%) received IABP only, 2711 (3.5%) received O-MCS only, and 2747 (3.6%) received both IABP and O-MCS. At the start of the study period, 45% of patients undergoing PCI in the setting of cardiogenic shock received an IABP and 6.7% received O-MCS. The proportion of patients receiving IABP declined at an average rate of 0.3% per quarter, whereas the rate of O-MCS use was unchanged over the study period. The predicted probability of IABP use varied significantly by site (hospital median 42%, interquartile range 33% to 51%, range 8% to 85%). The probability of O-MCS use was <5% for half of hospitals and >20% in less than one-tenth of hospitals.
CONCLUSIONS: In this large national registry, the use of IABP in the setting of PCI for cardiogenic shock decreased over time without a concurrent increase in O-MCS use. The probability of IABP and O-MCS use varied across hospitals, and the use of O-MCS was clustered at a small number of hospitals.
© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  advanced cardiac life support; high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention; intra-aortic balloon pump; percutaneous coronary intervention; shock, cardiogenic

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26286905     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.014451

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  23 in total

Review 1.  [Cardiac support and replacement systems].

Authors:  T Graf; H Thiele
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 0.840

2.  Clinical Practice Patterns in Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Shock in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry.

Authors:  David D Berg; Christopher F Barnett; Benjamin B Kenigsberg; Alexander Papolos; Carlos L Alviar; Vivian M Baird-Zars; Gregory W Barsness; Erin A Bohula; Joseph Brennan; James A Burke; Anthony P Carnicelli; Sunit-Preet Chaudhry; Paul C Cremer; Lori B Daniels; Andrew P DeFilippis; Daniel A Gerber; Christopher B Granger; Steven Hollenberg; James M Horowitz; James D Gladden; Jason N Katz; Ellen C Keeley; Norma Keller; Michael C Kontos; Patrick R Lawler; Venu Menon; Thomas S Metkus; P Elliott Miller; Jose Nativi-Nicolau; L Kristin Newby; Jeong-Gun Park; Nicholas Phreaner; Robert O Roswell; Steven P Schulman; Shashank S Sinha; R Jeffrey Snell; Michael A Solomon; Jeffrey J Teuteberg; Wayne Tymchak; Sean van Diepen; David A Morrow
Journal:  Circ Heart Fail       Date:  2019-11-11       Impact factor: 8.790

3.  Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Kevin J Morine; Navin K Kapur
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2016-01

Review 4.  The Impella Device: Historical Background, Clinical Applications and Future Directions.

Authors:  James J Glazier; Amir Kaki
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2018-12-20

Review 5.  Complex PCI procedures: challenges for the interventional cardiologist.

Authors:  Nikos Werner; Georg Nickenig; Jan-Malte Sinning
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 5.460

6.  Hospital Variation in the Utilization of Short-Term Nondurable Mechanical Circulatory Support in Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Jordan B Strom; Yuansong Zhao; Changyu Shen; Mabel Chung; Duane S Pinto; Jeffrey J Popma; David J Cohen; Robert W Yeh
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 6.546

Review 7.  Advanced Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices for Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  P Elliott Miller; Michael A Solomon; Dorothea McAreavey
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 7.598

Review 8.  Hemodynamic Support Devices for Shock and High-Risk PCI: When and Which One.

Authors:  George W Vetrovec
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 9.  Management of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Alexandre Mebazaa; Alain Combes; Sean van Diepen; Alexa Hollinger; Jaon N Katz; Giovanni Landoni; Ludhmila Abrahao Hajjar; Johan Lassus; Guillaume Lebreton; Gilles Montalescot; Jin Joo Park; Susanna Price; Alessandro Sionis; Demetris Yannopolos; Veli-Pekka Harjola; Bruno Levy; Holger Thiele
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 10.  Advancements in mechanical circulatory support for patients in acute and chronic heart failure.

Authors:  Thomas A Csepe; Ahmet Kilic
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.895

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.