Literature DB >> 33536855

Comparison of Mortality Risk Models in Patients with Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock and Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support.

Georgios Chatzis1, Birgit Markus1, Styliani Syntila1, Christian Waechter1, Ulrich Luesebrink1, Holger Ahrens1, Dimitar Divchev1, Bernhard Schieffer1, Konstantinos Karatolios1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although scoring systems are widely used to predict outcomes in postcardiac arrest cardiogenic shock (CS) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI), data concerning the accuracy of these scores to predict mortality of patients treated with Impella in this setting are lacking. Thus, we aimed to evaluate as well as to compare the prognostic accuracy of acute physiology and chronic health II (APACHE II), simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II), sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA), the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), CardShock, the prediction of cardiogenic shock outcome for AMI patients salvaged by VA-ECMO (ENCOURAGE), and the survival after venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (SAVE) score in patients with OHCA refractory CS due to an AMI treated with Impella 2.5 or CP.
METHODS: Retrospective study of 65 consecutive Impella 2.5 and 32 CP patients treated in our cardiac arrest center from September 2015 until June 2020.
RESULTS: Overall survival to discharge was 44.3%. The expected mortality according to scores was SOFA 70%, SAPS II 90%, IABP shock 55%, CardShock 80%, APACHE II 85%, ENCOURAGE 50%, and SAVE score 70% in the 2.5 group; SOFA 70%, SAPS II 85%, IABP shock 55%, CardShock 80%, APACHE II 85%, ENCOURAGE 75%, and SAVE score 70% in the CP group. The ENCOURAGE score was the most effective predictive model of mortality outcome presenting a moderate area under the curve (AUC) of 0.79, followed by the CardShock, APACHE II, IABP, and SAPS score. These derived an AUC between 0.71 and 0.78. The SOFA and the SAVE scores failed to predict the outcome in this particular setting of refractory CS after OHCA due to an AMI.
CONCLUSION: The available intensive care and newly developed CS scores offered only a moderate prognostic accuracy for outcomes in OHCA patients with refractory CS due to an AMI treated with Impella. A new score is needed in order to guide the therapy in these patients.
Copyright © 2021 Georgios Chatzis et al.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33536855      PMCID: PMC7834787          DOI: 10.1155/2021/8843935

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Interv Cardiol        ISSN: 0896-4327            Impact factor:   2.279


  30 in total

1.  Predicting survival with good neurological recovery at hospital admission after successful resuscitation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the OHCA score.

Authors:  Christophe Adrie; Alain Cariou; Bruno Mourvillier; Ivan Laurent; Hala Dabbane; Fatima Hantala; Abdel Rhaoui; Marie Thuong; Mehran Monchi
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2006-11-02       Impact factor: 29.983

2.  Risk Stratification for Patients in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Authors:  Janine Pöss; Jelena Köster; Georg Fuernau; Ingo Eitel; Suzanne de Waha; Taoufik Ouarrak; Johan Lassus; Veli-Pekka Harjola; Uwe Zeymer; Holger Thiele; Steffen Desch
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2017-04-18       Impact factor: 24.094

3.  Impella support compared to medical treatment for post-cardiac arrest shock after out of hospital cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Konstantinos Karatolios; Georgios Chatzis; Birgit Markus; Ulrich Luesebrink; Holger Ahrens; Wolfgang Dersch; Susanne Betz; Birgit Ploeger; Elisabeth Boesl; William O'Neill; Clemens Kill; Bernhard Schieffer
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 5.262

4.  Correlation between initial serum levels of lactate after return of spontaneous circulation and survival and neurological outcomes in patients who undergo therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest.

Authors:  Dong Hoon Lee; In Soo Cho; Sun Hwa Lee; Yong Il Min; Jin Hong Min; Soo Hyun Kim; Young Hwan Lee
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2014-11-14       Impact factor: 5.262

Review 5.  Global incidences of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and survival rates: Systematic review of 67 prospective studies.

Authors:  Jocelyn Berdowski; Robert A Berg; Jan G P Tijssen; Rudolph W Koster
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2010-09-09       Impact factor: 5.262

6.  Mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with the Impella CP microaxial pump for isolated left ventricular failure.

Authors:  Jan-Thorben Sieweke; Dominik Berliner; Jörn Tongers; L Christian Napp; Ulrike Flierl; Florian Zauner; Johann Bauersachs; Andreas Schäfer
Journal:  Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care       Date:  2018-02-06

7.  Survival after refractory cardiogenic shock is comparable in patients with Impella and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation when adjusted for SAVE score.

Authors:  Petter Schiller; Laila Hellgren; Per Vikholm
Journal:  Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care       Date:  2018-11-08

8.  Predictors for outcome among cardiac arrest patients: the importance of initial cardiac arrest rhythm versus time to return of spontaneous circulation, a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Ida Wibrandt; Kristine Norsted; Henrik Schmidt; Jens Schierbeck
Journal:  BMC Emerg Med       Date:  2015-02-04

9.  The modified SAVE score: predicting survival using urgent veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation within 24 hours of arrival at the emergency department.

Authors:  Wei-Cheng Chen; Kuo-Yang Huang; Chih-Wei Yao; Cing-Feng Wu; Shinn-Jye Liang; Chia-Hsiang Li; Chih-Yeh Tu; Hung-Jen Chen
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2016-10-22       Impact factor: 9.097

10.  Impella versus IABP in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  Florian Krackhardt; Carsten Skurk; Brunilda Alushi; Andel Douedari; Georg Froehlig; Wulf Knie; Thomas H Wurster; David M Leistner; Barbara Elisabeth Stahli; Hans-Christian Mochmann; Burkert Pieske; Ulf Landmesser
Journal:  Open Heart       Date:  2019-05-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.