Literature DB >> 30615561

Palliative Care Consultation in Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Short-Term Mechanical Circulatory Support: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Shunichi Nakagawa1, Arthur R Garan2, Koji Takeda3, Hiroo Takayama3, Veli K Topkara2, Melana Yuzefpolskaya2, Lauren Yuill4, Susan X Lin5, Paolo C Colombo2, Yoshifumi Naka3, Craig D Blinderman1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known about palliative care consultation (PCC) for patients with cardiogenic shock requiring short-term mechanical circulatory support (STMCS).
OBJECTIVE: To describe the utilization of PCC in this population.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study in a university medical center intensive care unit (ICU). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: In total, 195 patients aged >18 years with cardiogenic shock requiring STMCS were included. The cohort was divided into three categories: no PCC, early PCC (within seven days of STMCS), and late PCC (eight or more days after STMCS). Follow-up occurred during the index hospitalization.
RESULTS: Mean age was 59.3 ± 13.9 years; 67.9% were men. Mean follow-up period was 33.8 ± 37.7 days. Overall inpatient mortality was 52.3%. Ninety-four patients (48.2%) received PCC; 49 (25.1%) and 45 (23.1%) received early and late PCCs, respectively. STMCS duration, ICU stay after STMCS, and hospital stay after STMCS were significantly shorter in the no PCC group than the early PCC group (4 vs. 12 days, p < 0.001; 11 vs. 19 days, p = 0.004; and 16 vs. 19 days, p = 0.031; respectively). ICU stay after STMCS and hospital stay after STMCS were significantly shorter in the early PCC group than the late PCC group (19 vs. 38 days, p < 0.001; 19 vs. 49 days, p < 0.001; respectively). However, time from initial PCC to discharge was not significantly different between early and late PCC groups (18 vs. 31 days, p = 0.13).
CONCLUSIONS: PCC was utilized in almost half of patients with cardiogenic shock requiring STMCS. PCC tends to occur toward the end of life regardless of the duration of STMCS. The optimal PCC timing remained unclear.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cardiogenic shock; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; heart-assist devices; intensive care units; observational study; palliative care

Year:  2019        PMID: 30615561     DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2018.0393

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Palliat Med        ISSN: 1557-7740            Impact factor:   2.947


  3 in total

Review 1.  Systems of Care in Cardiogenic Shock.

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

2.  Utilization of Palliative Care for Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction: A 15-Year National Perspective on Trends, Disparities, Predictors, and Outcomes.

Authors:  Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula; Abhiram Prasad; Shannon M Dunlay; Dennis H Murphree; Cory Ingram; Paul S Mueller; Bernard J Gersh; David R Holmes; Gregory W Barsness
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2019-07-18       Impact factor: 5.501

Review 3.  Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation allocation in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Kadhiresan R Murugappan; Daniel P Walsh; Aaron Mittel; David Sontag; Shahzad Shaefi
Journal:  J Crit Care       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 3.425

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.