Hoong Sern Lim 1 , Aaron Ranasinghe 1 , David Quinn 1 , Colin Chue 1 , Jorge Mascaro 1 Show Affiliations »
Abstract
Background: There are few reports of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) due to end-stage heart failure (ESHF). We evaluated our institutional MCS strategy and compared the outcomes of INTERMACS 1 and 2 patients with CS due to ESHF. Methods: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data (November 2014 to July 2019) from a single centre. ESHF was defined by a diagnosis of HF prior to presentation with CS. Other causes of CS (eg: acute myocardial infarction) were excluded. We compared the clinical course, complications and 90-day survival of patients with CS due to ESHF in INTERMACS profile 1 and 2. Results: We included 60 consecutive patients with CS due to ESHF Differences in baseline characteristics were consistent with the INTERMACS profiles. The duration of MCS was similar between INTERMACS 1 and 2 patients (14 (10-33) vs 15 (7-23) days, p = 0.439). There was no significant difference in the number of patients with complications that required intervention. Compared to INTERMACS 2, INTERMACS 1 patients had more organ dysfunction on support and significant lower 90-day survival (66% vs 34%, p = 0.016). Conclusion: Our temporary MCS strategy, including earlier intervention in patients with CS due to ESHF at INTERMACS 2 was associated with less organ dysfunction and better 90-day survival compared to INTERMACS 1 patients. © The Intensive Care Society 2021.
Background: There are few reports of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) due to end-stage heart failure (ESHF). We evaluated our institutional MCS strategy and compared the outcomes of INTERMACS 1 and 2 patients with CS due to ESHF. Methods: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data (November 2014 to July 2019) from a single centre. ESHF was defined by a diagnosis of HF prior to presentation with CS. Other causes of CS (eg: acute myocardial infarction) were excluded. We compared the clinical course, complications and 90-day survival of patients with CS due to ESHF in INTERMACS profile 1 and 2. Results: We included 60 consecutive patients with CS due to ESHF Differences in baseline characteristics were consistent with the INTERMACS profiles. The duration of MCS was similar between INTERMACS 1 and 2 patients (14 (10-33) vs 15 (7-23) days, p = 0.439). There was no significant difference in the number of patients with complications that required intervention. Compared to INTERMACS 2, INTERMACS 1 patients had more organ dysfunction on support and significant lower 90-day survival (66% vs 34%, p = 0.016). Conclusion: Our temporary MCS strategy, including earlier intervention in patients with CS due to ESHF at INTERMACS 2 was associated with less organ dysfunction and better 90-day survival compared to INTERMACS 1 patients. © The Intensive Care Society 2021.
Entities: Chemical
Keywords:
Cardiogenic shock
Year: 2021
PMID： 35615244 PMCID： PMC9125436 DOI： 10.1177/1751143720988706
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Intensive Care Soc ISSN： 1751-1437