Jakob Josiassen1, Ole Kristian Lerche Helgestad2,3, Jacob Eifer Møller1,2,3, Jesper Kjaergaard1, Henrik Frederiksen Hoejgaard4, Henrik Schmidt4, Lisette Okkels Jensen2, Lene Holmvang1,5, Hanne Berg Ravn6,5, Christian Hassager1,5. 1. Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 3. Odense Patient data Explorative Network, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 4. Department of Cardiothoracic Anesthesia, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 5. Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6. Department of Cardiothoracic Anesthesia, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most studies in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) include patients presenting with and without out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The aim was to compare OHCA and non-OHCA AMICS patients in terms of hemodynamics, management in the intensive care unit (ICU) and outcome. METHODS: From a cohort corresponding to two thirds of the Danish population, all patients with AMICS admitted from 2010-2017 were individually identified through patient records. RESULTS: A total of 1716 AMICS patients were identified of which 723 (42%) presented with OHCA. A total of 1532 patients survived to ICU admission. At the time of ICU arrival, there were no differences between OHCA and non-OHCA AMICS patients in variables commonly used in the AMICS definition (mean arterial pressure (MAP) (72mmHg vs 70mmHg, p = 0.12), lactate (4.3mmol/L vs 4.0mmol/L, p = 0.09) and cardiac output (CO) (4.6L/min vs 4.4L/min, p = 0.30)) were observed. However, during the initial days of ICU treatment OHCA patients had a higher MAP despite a lower need for vasoactive drugs, higher CO, SVO2 and lactate clearance compared to non-OHCA patients (p<0.05 for all). In multivariable analysis outcome was similar but cause of death differed significantly with hypoxic brain injury being leading cause in OHCA and cardiac failure in non-OHCA AMICS patients. CONCLUSION: OHCA and non-OHCA AMICS patients initially have comparable metabolic and hemodynamic profiles, but marked differences develop between the groups during the first days of ICU treatment. Thus, pooling of OHCA and non-OHCA patients as one clinical entity in studies should be done with caution.
BACKGROUND: Most studies in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) include patients presenting with and without out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The aim was to compare OHCA and non-OHCA AMICS patients in terms of hemodynamics, management in the intensive care unit (ICU) and outcome. METHODS: From a cohort corresponding to two thirds of the Danish population, all patients with AMICS admitted from 2010-2017 were individually identified through patient records. RESULTS: A total of 1716 AMICS patients were identified of which 723 (42%) presented with OHCA. A total of 1532 patients survived to ICU admission. At the time of ICU arrival, there were no differences between OHCA and non-OHCA AMICS patients in variables commonly used in the AMICS definition (mean arterial pressure (MAP) (72mmHg vs 70mmHg, p = 0.12), lactate (4.3mmol/L vs 4.0mmol/L, p = 0.09) and cardiac output (CO) (4.6L/min vs 4.4L/min, p = 0.30)) were observed. However, during the initial days of ICU treatment OHCA patients had a higher MAP despite a lower need for vasoactive drugs, higher CO, SVO2 and lactate clearance compared to non-OHCA patients (p<0.05 for all). In multivariable analysis outcome was similar but cause of death differed significantly with hypoxic brain injury being leading cause in OHCA and cardiac failure in non-OHCA AMICS patients. CONCLUSION: OHCA and non-OHCA AMICS patients initially have comparable metabolic and hemodynamic profiles, but marked differences develop between the groups during the first days of ICU treatment. Thus, pooling of OHCA and non-OHCA patients as one clinical entity in studies should be done with caution.
Authors: Niklas Nielsen; Jørn Wetterslev; Tobias Cronberg; David Erlinge; Yvan Gasche; Christian Hassager; Janneke Horn; Jan Hovdenes; Jesper Kjaergaard; Michael Kuiper; Tommaso Pellis; Pascal Stammet; Michael Wanscher; Matt P Wise; Anders Åneman; Nawaf Al-Subaie; Søren Boesgaard; John Bro-Jeppesen; Iole Brunetti; Jan Frederik Bugge; Christopher D Hingston; Nicole P Juffermans; Matty Koopmans; Lars Køber; Jørund Langørgen; Gisela Lilja; Jacob Eifer Møller; Malin Rundgren; Christian Rylander; Ondrej Smid; Christophe Werer; Per Winkel; Hans Friberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-11-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sarah Ostenfeld; Matias Greve Lindholm; Jesper Kjaergaard; John Bro-Jeppesen; Jacob Eifer Møller; Michael Wanscher; Christian Hassager Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Robert J Goldberg; Frederick A Spencer; Joel M Gore; Darleen Lessard; Jorge Yarzebski Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-02-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula; Jacob C Jentzer; Aditya A Kotecha; Dennis H Murphree; Erin F Barreto; Ashish K Khanna; Vivek N Iyer Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 6.925