Mari Hongisto1, Johan Lassus2, Tuukka Tarvasmaki3, Alessandro Sionis4, Heli Tolppanen2, Matias Greve Lindholm5, Marek Banaszewski6, John Parissis7, Jindrich Spinar8, Jose Silva-Cardoso9, Valentina Carubelli10, Salvatore Di Somma11, Josep Masip12, Veli-Pekka Harjola3. 1. Emergency Medicine, University of Helsinki, Department of Emergency Care, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. Electronic address: mari.hongisto@hus.fi. 2. Helsinki University Hospital, Heart and Lung Center, Division of Cardiology, Helsinki, Finland. 3. Emergency Medicine, University of Helsinki, Department of Emergency Care, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. 4. Intensive Cardiac Care Unit, Cardiology Department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau) Barcelona, Spain. 5. Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Intensive Cardiac Care Unit, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6. Institute of Cardiology, Intensive Cardiac Therapy Clinic, Warsaw, Poland. 7. Attikon University Hospital, Heart Failure Clinic and Secondary Cardiology Department, Athens, Greece. 8. University Hospital Brno, Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiology, Brno, Czech Republic. 9. University of Porto, CINTESIS, Department of Cardiology, Porto Medical School, São João Hospital Center, Porto, Portugal. 10. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences, and Public Health, University and Civil Hospital of Brescia, Italy. 11. Department of Medical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome Sapienza, Emergency Medicine Sant'Andrea Hospital, Rome, Italy. 12. University of Barcelona, Hospital Sant Joan Despi Moisès Broggi, Critical Care Department, Consorci Sanitari Integral, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite scarce data, invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) is widely recommended over non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for ventilatory support in cardiogenic shock (CS). We assessed the real-life use of different ventilation strategies in CS and their influence on outcome focusing on the use of NIV and MV. METHODS:219 CS patients were categorized by the maximum intensity of ventilatory support they needed during the first 24h into MV (n=137; 63%) , NIV (n=26; 12%), and supplementary oxygen (n=56; 26%) groups. We compared the clinical characteristics and 90-day outcome between the MV and the NIV groups. RESULTS:Mean age was 67years, 74% were men. The MV and NIV groups did not differ in age, medical history, etiology of CS, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, baseline hemodynamics or LVEF. MV patients predominantly presented with hypoperfusion, with more severe metabolic acidosis, higher lactate levels and greater need for vasoactive drugs, whereas NIV patients tended to be more often congestive. 90-day outcome was significantly worse in the MV group (50% vs. 27%), but after propensity score adjustment, mortality was equal in both groups. Confusion, prior CABG, ACS etiology, higher lactate level, and lower baseline PaO2 were independent predictors of mortality, whereas ventilation strategy did not have any influence on outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Although MV is generally recommended mode of ventilatory support in CS, a fair number of patients were successfully treated with NIV. Moreover, ventilation strategy was not associated with outcome. Thus, NIV seems a safe option for properly chosen CS patients.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Despite scarce data, invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) is widely recommended over non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for ventilatory support in cardiogenic shock (CS). We assessed the real-life use of different ventilation strategies in CS and their influence on outcome focusing on the use of NIV and MV. METHODS: 219 CS patients were categorized by the maximum intensity of ventilatory support they needed during the first 24h into MV (n=137; 63%) , NIV (n=26; 12%), and supplementary oxygen (n=56; 26%) groups. We compared the clinical characteristics and 90-day outcome between the MV and the NIV groups. RESULTS: Mean age was 67years, 74% were men. The MV and NIV groups did not differ in age, medical history, etiology of CS, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, baseline hemodynamics or LVEF. MV patients predominantly presented with hypoperfusion, with more severe metabolic acidosis, higher lactate levels and greater need for vasoactive drugs, whereas NIV patients tended to be more often congestive. 90-day outcome was significantly worse in the MV group (50% vs. 27%), but after propensity score adjustment, mortality was equal in both groups. Confusion, prior CABG, ACS etiology, higher lactate level, and lower baseline PaO2 were independent predictors of mortality, whereas ventilation strategy did not have any influence on outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Although MV is generally recommended mode of ventilatory support in CS, a fair number of patients were successfully treated with NIV. Moreover, ventilation strategy was not associated with outcome. Thus, NIV seems a safe option for properly chosen CS patients.
Authors: Josep Masip; W Frank Peacock; Susanna Price; Louise Cullen; F Javier Martin-Sanchez; Petar Seferovic; Alan S Maisel; Oscar Miro; Gerasimos Filippatos; Christiaan Vrints; Michael Christ; Martin Cowie; Elke Platz; John McMurray; Salvatore DiSomma; Uwe Zeymer; Hector Bueno; Chris P Gale; Maddalena Lettino; Mucio Tavares; Frank Ruschitzka; Alexandre Mebazaa; Veli-Pekka Harjola; Christian Mueller Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Ovidiu Chioncel; Sean P Collins; Andrew P Ambrosy; Peter S Pang; Razvan I Radu; Elena-Laura Antohi; Josep Masip; Javed Butler; Vlad Anton Iliescu Journal: Am J Ther Date: 2019 Mar/Apr Impact factor: 2.688
Authors: Felix C F Schmitt; Daniel Gruneberg; Niko R E Schneider; Jan-Ole Fögeling; Moritz Leucht; Felix Herth; Michael R Preusch; Werner Schmidt; Christian Bopp; Thomas Bruckner; Markus A Weigand; Stefan Hofer; Erik Popp Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Birgit Andrea Gartner; Christophe Fehlmann; Laurent Suppan; Marc Niquille; Olivier T Rutschmann; François Sarasin Journal: Eur J Emerg Med Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 4.106