Literature DB >> 28040188

Effect of Early Initiation of Mechanical Circulatory Support on Survival in Cardiogenic Shock.

Mir B Basir1, Theodore L Schreiber2, Cindy L Grines2, Simon R Dixon3, Jeffrey W Moses4, Brijeshwar S Maini5, Akshay K Khandelwal1, E Magnus Ohman6, William W O'Neill7.   

Abstract

The role and timing of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) are not well understood. We sought to evaluate patient characteristics and predictors of outcomes in patients presenting with AMICS supported with an axial flow percutaneous MCS device; 287 consecutive unselected patients enrolled in the catheter-based ventricular assist device registry presenting with AMICS who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were included in this analysis. All patients were supported with either the Impella 2.5 or Impella CP. Mean patient age was 66 ± 12.5 years, 76% were men, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 25 ± 12%. Before receiving MCS, 80% of patients required inotropes or vasopressors and 40% were supported with intra-aortic balloon pump; 9% of patients were under active cardiopulmonary resuscitation at the time of MCS implantation. Survival to discharge was 44%. In a multivariate analysis, early implantation of a MCS device before PCI (p = 0.04) and before requiring inotropes and vasopressors (p = 0.05) was associated with increased survival. Survival was 66% when MCS was initiated <1.25 hours from shock onset, 37% when initiated within 1.25 to 4.25 hours, and 26% when initiated after 4.25 hours (p = 0.017). Survival was 68%, 46%, 35%, 35%, and 26% for patients requiring 0, 1, 2, 3, and ≥4 inotropes before MCS support, respectively (p <0.001). In conclusion, MCS implantation early after shock onset, before initiation of inotropes or vasopressors and before PCI, is independently associated with improved survival in patients presenting with AMICS.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28040188     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.11.037

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Cardiol        ISSN: 0002-9149            Impact factor:   2.778


  55 in total

Review 1.  Mechanical Circulatory Support: a Comprehensive Review With a Focus on Women.

Authors:  Manal Alasnag; Alexander G Truesdell; Holli Williams; Sara C Martinez; Syeda Kashfi Qadri; John P Skendelas; William A Jakobleff; Mirvat Alasnag
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2020-04-23       Impact factor: 5.113

2.  Acute Cardiac Unloading and Recovery: Proceedings of the 5th Annual Acute Cardiac Unloading and REcovery (A-CURE) symposium held on 14 December 2020.

Authors: 
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2021-03-23

Review 3.  Mechanical Circulatory Support in High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Authors:  Bhuvnesh Aggarwal; Wahaj Aman; Omar Jeroudi; Neal S Kleiman
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2018 Jan-Mar

Review 4.  'Combat' Approach to Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Alexander G Truesdell; Behnam Tehrani; Ramesh Singh; Shashank Desai; Patricia Saulino; Scott Barnett; Stephen Lavanier; Charles Murphy
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2018-05

Review 5.  Percutaneous support of the failing left and right ventricle-recommendations for the use of mechanical device therapy.

Authors:  Sven Möbius-Winkler; Michael Fritzenwanger; Rüdiger Pfeifer; P Christian Schulze
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 4.214

Review 6.  Systems of Care in Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Maria M Patarroyo Aponte; Carlos Manrique; Biswajit Kar
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2020 Jan-Mar

7.  Predictors of intra-aortic balloon pump hemodynamic failure in non-acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  Steven Hsu; Swetha Kambhampati; Christopher M Sciortino; Stuart D Russell; Steven P Schulman
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 4.749

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

10.  Left ventricle unloading strategies in ECMO: A single-center experience.

Authors:  Laura M Piechura; Antonio Coppolino; Gita N Mody; Daniel E Rinewalt; Mohammed Keshk; Mitsugu Ogawa; Raghu Seethala; Erin A Bohula; David A Morrow; Steve K Singh; Hari R Mallidi; Steven P Keller
Journal:  J Card Surg       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 1.620

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.