Literature DB >> 31707801

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

David D Berg1, Christopher F Barnett2, Benjamin B Kenigsberg2, Alexander Papolos2, Carlos L Alviar3, Vivian M Baird-Zars1, Gregory W Barsness4, Erin A Bohula1, Joseph Brennan5, James A Burke6, Anthony P Carnicelli7, Sunit-Preet Chaudhry8, Paul C Cremer9, Lori B Daniels10, Andrew P DeFilippis11, Daniel A Gerber12, Christopher B Granger7, Steven Hollenberg13, James M Horowitz3, James D Gladden4, Jason N Katz14, Ellen C Keeley15, Norma Keller3, Michael C Kontos16, Patrick R Lawler17, Venu Menon8, Thomas S Metkus18, P Elliott Miller5, Jose Nativi-Nicolau19, L Kristin Newby7, Jeong-Gun Park1, Nicholas Phreaner10, Robert O Roswell20, Steven P Schulman18, Shashank S Sinha21, R Jeffrey Snell22, Michael A Solomon23, Jeffrey J Teuteberg12, Wayne Tymchak24, Sean van Diepen24, David A Morrow1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices provide hemodynamic assistance for shock refractory to pharmacological treatment. Most registries have focused on single devices or specific etiologies of shock, limiting data regarding overall practice patterns with temporary MCS in cardiac intensive care units.
METHODS: The CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) is a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in North America. Between September 2017 and September 2018, each center (n=16) contributed a 2-month snapshot of consecutive medical CICU admissions.
RESULTS: Of the 270 admissions using temporary MCS, 33% had acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (CS), 31% had CS not related to acute myocardial infarction, 11% had mixed shock, and 22% had an indication other than shock. Among all 585 admissions with CS or mixed shock, 34% used temporary MCS during the CICU stay with substantial variation between centers (range: 17%-50%). The most common temporary MCS devices were intraaortic balloon pumps (72%), Impella (17%), and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (11%), although intraaortic balloon pump use also varied between centers (range: 40%-100%). Patients managed with intraaortic balloon pump versus other forms of MCS (advanced MCS) had lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and less severe metabolic derangements. Illness severity was similar at high- versus low-MCS utilizing centers and at centers with more advanced MCS use.
CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in the use of temporary MCS among patients with shock in tertiary CICUs. While hospital-level variation in temporary MCS device selection is not explained by differences in illness severity, patient-level variation appears to be related, at least in part, to illness severity.

Entities:  

Keywords:  critical care; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; hemodynamics; myocardial infarction; shock

Year:  2019        PMID: 31707801      PMCID: PMC7008928          DOI: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.119.006635

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circ Heart Fail        ISSN: 1941-3289            Impact factor:   8.790


  16 in total

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

Authors:  Amneet Sandhu; Lisa A McCoy; Smita I Negi; Irfan Hameed; Prashant Atri; Subhi J Al'Aref; Jeptha Curtis; Ed McNulty; H Vernon Anderson; Adhir Shroff; Mark Menegus; Rajesh V Swaminathan; Hitinder Gurm; John Messenger; Tracy Wang; Steven M Bradley
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: This document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in April 2019.

Authors:  David A Baran; Cindy L Grines; Steven Bailey; Daniel Burkhoff; Shelley A Hall; Timothy D Henry; Steven M Hollenberg; Navin K Kapur; William O'Neill; Joseph P Ornato; Kelly Stelling; Holger Thiele; Sean van Diepen; Srihari S Naidu
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2019-05-19       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  National trends, predictors of use, and in-hospital outcomes in mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  Jordan B Strom; Yuansong Zhao; Changyu Shen; Mabel Chung; Duane S Pinto; Jeffrey J Popma; Robert W Yeh
Journal:  EuroIntervention       Date:  2018-04-06       Impact factor: 6.534

Review 4.  Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Authors:  Sean van Diepen; Jason N Katz; Nancy M Albert; Timothy D Henry; Alice K Jacobs; Navin K Kapur; Ahmet Kilic; Venu Menon; E Magnus Ohman; Nancy K Sweitzer; Holger Thiele; Jeffrey B Washam; Mauricio G Cohen
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 29.690

5.  Demographics, Care Patterns, and Outcomes of Patients Admitted to Cardiac Intensive Care Units: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Prospective North American Multicenter Registry of Cardiac Critical Illness.

Authors:  Erin A Bohula; Jason N Katz; Sean van Diepen; Carlos L Alviar; Vivian M Baird-Zars; Jeong-Gun Park; Christopher F Barnett; Gurjaspreet Bhattal; Gregory W Barsness; James A Burke; Paul C Cremer; Jennifer Cruz; Lori B Daniels; Andrew DeFilippis; Christopher B Granger; Steven Hollenberg; James M Horowitz; Norma Keller; Michael C Kontos; Patrick R Lawler; Venu Menon; Thomas S Metkus; Jason Ng; Ryan Orgel; Christopher B Overgaard; Nicholas Phreaner; Robert O Roswell; Steven P Schulman; R Jeffrey Snell; Michael A Solomon; Bradley Ternus; Wayne Tymchak; Fnu Vikram; David A Morrow
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 14.676

6.  Thirty-year trends (1975 to 2005) in the magnitude of, management of, and hospital death rates associated with cardiogenic shock in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a population-based perspective.

Authors:  Robert J Goldberg; Frederick A Spencer; Joel M Gore; Darleen Lessard; Jorge Yarzebski
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2009-02-23       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  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

8.  Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  Holger Thiele; Uwe Zeymer; Franz-Josef Neumann; Miroslaw Ferenc; Hans-Georg Olbrich; Jörg Hausleiter; Gert Richardt; Marcus Hennersdorf; Klaus Empen; Georg Fuernau; Steffen Desch; Ingo Eitel; Rainer Hambrecht; Jörg Fuhrmann; Michael Böhm; Henning Ebelt; Steffen Schneider; Gerhard Schuler; Karl Werdan
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-08-26       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Improved outcome of cardiogenic shock at the acute stage of myocardial infarction: a report from the USIK 1995, USIC 2000, and FAST-MI French nationwide registries.

Authors:  Nadia Aissaoui; Etienne Puymirat; Xavier Tabone; Bernard Charbonnier; Francois Schiele; Thierry Lefèvre; Eric Durand; Didier Blanchard; Tabassome Simon; Jean-Pierre Cambou; Nicolas Danchin
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2012-08-26       Impact factor: 29.983

10.  Decade-Long Trends (2001-2011) in the Incidence and Hospital Death Rates Associated with the In-Hospital Development of Cardiogenic Shock after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Authors:  Robert J Goldberg; Raghavendra Charan P Makam; Jorge Yarzebski; David D McManus; Darleen Lessard; Joel M Gore
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2016-02-16
View more
  11 in total

1.  Contemporary Use of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Insights from the Multicenter RESCUE Registry.

Authors:  Rahul S Loungani; Marat Fudim; Dave Ranney; Ajar Kochar; Marc D Samsky; Desiree Bonadonna; Akinobu Itoh; Hiroo Takayama; Koji Takeda; Daniel Wojdyla; Adam D DeVore; Mani Daneshmand
Journal:  J Card Fail       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 5.712

2.  De Novo vs Acute-on-Chronic Presentations of Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Insights from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry.

Authors:  Ankeet S Bhatt; David D Berg; Erin A Bohula; Carlos L Alviar; Vivian M Baird-Zars; Christopher F Barnett; James A Burke; Anthony P Carnicelli; Sunit-Preet Chaudhry; Lori B Daniels; James C Fang; Christopher B Fordyce; Daniel A Gerber; Jianping Guo; Jacob C Jentzer; Jason N Katz; Norma Keller; Michael C Kontos; Patrick R Lawler; Venu Menon; Thomas S Metkus; Jose Nativi-Nicolau; Nicholas Phreaner; Robert O Roswell; Shashank S Sinha; R Jeffrey Snell; Michael A Solomon; Sean Van Diepen; David A Morrow
Journal:  J Card Fail       Date:  2021-10       Impact factor: 6.592

Review 3.  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

4.  Use of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Management of Cardiogenic Shock Before and After the United Network for Organ Sharing Donor Heart Allocation System Changes.

Authors:  Anubodh S Varshney; David D Berg; Jason N Katz; Vivian M Baird-Zars; Erin A Bohula; Anthony P Carnicelli; Sunit-Preet Chaudhry; Jianping Guo; Patrick R Lawler; Jose Nativi-Nicolau; Shashank S Sinha; Jeffrey J Teuteberg; Sean van Diepen; David A Morrow
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 14.676

5.  Prognostic Impact of Active Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction, Results from the Culprit-Shock Trial.

Authors:  Hans-Josef Feistritzer; Steffen Desch; Anne Freund; Janine Poess; Uwe Zeymer; Taoufik Ouarrak; Steffen Schneider; Suzanne de Waha-Thiele; Georg Fuernau; Ingo Eitel; Marko Noc; Janina Stepinska; Kurt Huber; Holger Thiele
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-06-24       Impact factor: 4.241

6.  Are Unselected Risk Scores in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Needed?

Authors:  P Elliott Miller; Jacob Jentzer; Jason N Katz
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2021-10-18       Impact factor: 5.501

Review 7.  Mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: Challenges and importance of randomized control trials.

Authors:  Mir B Basir; Duane S Pinto; Boback Ziaeian; Akshay Khandelwal; Jennifer Cowger; William Suh; Andrew Althouse
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2021-03-07       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Sanket S Dhruva; Joseph S Ross; Bobak J Mortazavi; Nathan C Hurley; Harlan M Krumholz; Jeptha P Curtis; Alyssa P Berkowitz; Frederick A Masoudi; John C Messenger; Craig S Parzynski; Che G Ngufor; Saket Girotra; Amit P Amin; Nilay D Shah; Nihar R Desai
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-02-01

9.  Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Management and Outcomes of Cardiac Arrest Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Authors:  Anna V Subramaniam; Sri Harsha Patlolla; Wisit Cheungpasitporn; Pranathi R Sundaragiri; P Elliott Miller; Gregory W Barsness; Malcolm R Bell; David R Holmes; Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2021-05-20       Impact factor: 5.501

10.  Cardiogenic shock: incidence, survival and mechanical circulatory support usage 2007-2017-insights from a national registry.

Authors:  Corinna N Lang; Klaus Kaier; Viviane Zotzmann; Peter Stachon; Torben Pottgiesser; Constantin von Zur Muehlen; Manfred Zehender; Daniel Duerschmied; Bonaventura Schmid; Christoph Bode; Tobias Wengenmayer; Dawid L Staudacher
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2020-11-30       Impact factor: 5.460

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.