Literature DB >> 32438988

Frequency and Impact of Bleeding on Outcome in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock.

Anne Freund1, Alexander Jobs2, Philipp Lurz3, Hans-Josef Feistritzer3, Suzanne de Waha-Thiele4, Roza Meyer-Saraei4, Gilles Montalescot5, Kurt Huber6, Marko Noc7, Stephan Windecker8, Uwe Zeymer9, Taoufik Ouarrak10, Steffen Schneider10, Holger Thiele11, Steffen Desch2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine frequency, associated factors, and impact of bleeding in infarct-related cardiogenic shock.
BACKGROUND: Early revascularization is associated with improved survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. On the downside, invasive treatment and accompanying antithrombotic therapies are associated with an increased bleeding risk. Prospective data assessing the incidence, severity, risk factors, and prognostic implication of bleeding in patients with cardiogenic shock are scarce.
METHODS: As a pre-defined subanalysis of the CULPRIT-SHOCK (PCI Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock) randomized trial, we examined distribution of bleeding events in 684 patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock and compared patients with any bleeding to those without.
RESULTS: A total of 21.5% patients experienced at least 1 bleeding event until 30 days after randomization. The vast majority of bleeding (57%) occurred within the first 2 days of hospitalization. Patients with bleeding had prolonged catecholamine treatment and mechanical ventilation and there was a significant association with sepsis, peripheral ischemic complications, new atrial fibrillation, and ventricular fibrillation. In multivariable analysis, bleeding was associated with a significantly higher mortality (hazard ratio: 2.11; 95% confidence interval: 1.63 to 2.75; p < 0.0001). Treatment with active mechanical support by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or Impella emerged as the major risk factor for bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS: Risk of bleeding in infarct-related cardiogenic shock is high and associated with increased mortality.
Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  acute myocardial infarction; bleeding; cardiogenic shock; prognosis; revascularization

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32438988     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.02.042

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1936-8798            Impact factor:   11.195


  7 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

2.  New challenges in cardiac intensive care units.

Authors:  Enzo Lüsebrink; Antonia Kellnar; Clemens Scherer; Kathrin Krieg; Mathias Orban; Tobias Petzold; Sven Peterss; Stefan Kääb; Stefan Brunner; Daniel Braun; Christian Hagl; Jörg Hausleiter; Steffen Massberg; Martin Orban
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2021-05-09       Impact factor: 5.460

3.  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

Review 4.  Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Anne Freund; Steffen Desch; Janine Pöss; Dmitry Sulimov; Marcus Sandri; Nicolas Majunke; Holger Thiele
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-02-25       Impact factor: 4.241

5.  Manual compression versus MANTA device for access management after impella removal on the ICU.

Authors:  Florim Cuculi; Philipp Burkart; Giacomo Cioffi; Federico Moccetti; Mehdi Madanchi; Thomas Seiler; Stefanie Hess; Mathias Wolfrum; Magiliny Jeyarasa; Sonja Meier; Silvia Kuzmiakova; Maani Hakimi; Robert Seelos; Richard Kobza; Stefan Toggweiler; Adrian Attinger-Toller; Matthias Bossard
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-08-18       Impact factor: 4.996

6.  Clopidogrel vs. prasugrel vs. ticagrelor in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a pooled IABP-SHOCK II and CULPRIT-SHOCK trial sub-analysis.

Authors:  Martin Orban; Jan Kleeberger; Holger Thiele; Taoufik Ouarrak; Anne Freund; Hans-Josef Feistritzer; Georg Fuernau; Tobias Geisler; Kurt Huber; Dariusz Dudek; Marko Noc; Gilles Montalescot; Alexander Neumer; Paul Haller; Peter Clemmensen; Uwe Zeymer; Steffen Desch; Steffen Massberg; Steffen Schneider; Jörg Hausleiter
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2021-05-17       Impact factor: 5.460

7.  Can we have a rationalized selection of intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the catheterization laboratory?

Authors:  Giulio Russo; Francesco Burzotta; Cristina Aurigemma; Daniela Pedicino; Enrico Romagnoli; Carlo Trani
Journal:  Cardiol J       Date:  2020-12-21       Impact factor: 2.737

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.