Literature DB >> 30297267

Temporal Trends in Utilization of Right-Sided Heart Catheterization Among Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device Recipients in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.

Nikhil Nalluri1, Nileshkumar J Patel2, Varunsiri Atti3, Varun Kumar4, Mir B Basir5, William W O'Neill5.   

Abstract

Percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVAD) have been used at an increasing rate in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). Recent evidence has demonstrated that use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring with right-sided heart catheterization (RHC) was associated with improved survival in recipients of PVAD in AMI-CS. We sought to examine the utilization of RHC in patients receiving PVAD in AMI-CS. We queried the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 2008 to 2014 and identified patients using ICD-9-CM codes for AMI-CS (410, 785.51), PVAD (37.68), and RHC (37.21, 37.23). Temporal trends were analyzed using Cochrane Armitage test. In 5,925 patients who were treated with PVAD for AMI-CS, 1,691 (28.5%) underwent RHC. The mean (SD) age was 63.9 (12.3) years; majority were males (72.8%) and white (63.3%). Patients receiving RHC had higher baseline burden of co-morbidities, Charlson Co-morbidity Index ≥2 (56.1%). From 2008 to 2014, there was decrease in the utilization of RHC in patients receiving PVAD from 40.4% to 29.8% (ptrend = 0.0005). Mortality decreased in patients who received RHC (56% to 42.6%, ptrend = 0.005), whereas mortality increased in patients without RHC (44.4% to 48.4%, ptrend = 0.001). In conclusion, in patients who present with AMI-CS and were treated with PVAD, there was a progressive decline in the utilization of RHC, despite a temporal decrease in mortality in patients receiving RHC. Novel strategies should be explored to increase the use of RHC in this high-risk patient population.
Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30297267     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.08.065

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


  5 in total

Review 1.  Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock Interventional Approach to Management in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories.

Authors:  Behnam N Tehrani; Abdulla A Damluji; Wayne B Batchelor
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rev       Date:  2022

Review 2.  A Critical Review of Hemodynamically Guided Therapy for Cardiogenic Shock: Old Habits Die Hard.

Authors:  Iyad N Isseh; Ran Lee; Rola Khedraki; Karlee Hoffman
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2021-03-23

3.  Dynamic Modulation of Device-Arterial Coupling to Determine Cardiac Output and Vascular Resistance.

Authors:  Steven P Keller; Brian Y Chang; Qing Tan; Zhengyang Zhang; Ahmad El Katerji; Elazer R Edelman
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2020-04-13       Impact factor: 3.934

4.  Pulmonary artery catheter use in acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula; Aditi Shankar; Sri Harsha Patlolla; Abhiram Prasad; Malcolm R Bell; Jacob C Jentzer; Shilpkumar Arora; Saarwaani Vallabhajosyula; Bernard J Gersh; Allan S Jaffe; David R Holmes; Shannon M Dunlay; Gregory W Barsness
Journal:  ESC Heart Fail       Date:  2020-04-02

5.  Predicting Parameters for Successful Weaning from Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Kenichiro Sawada; Shoji Kawakami; Shunsuke Murata; Kunihiro Nishimura; Yoshio Tahara; Hayato Hosoda; Takahiro Nakashima; Yu Kataoka; Yasuhide Asaumi; Teruo Noguchi; Masaru Sugimachi; Tomoyuki Fujita; Junjiro Kobayashi; Satoshi Yasuda
Journal:  ESC Heart Fail       Date:  2020-12-02
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.