Abstract 16115: The Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Cardiogenic Shock Classification Predicts Mortality in Cardiac Arrest Patients Prior to Pci

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Ortiz ◽  
George A Stouffer ◽  
Joseph Rossi ◽  
Jason N Katz
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Catheterization Laboratory ◽  
Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Vasopressor Support ◽  
Stage D

Introduction: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) complicated by cardiac arrest (CA) has a heterogeneous presentation, and risk can be challenging to stratify. This study aimed to apply the SCAI cardiogenic shock stages to patients with ACS complicated by CA at early pivotal time intervals when prompt interventions may have a greater impact. Methods: Patients undergoing PCI presenting with CA were stratified according to the SCAI shock classification, retrospectively, on arrival to the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) and on arrival to the intensive care unit (ICU). The primary end-point was in-hospital mortality. Secondary end-points were mortality stratified by the use of mechanical circulatory support or the level of vasopressor support used. Results: Between 01/2014 -08/2018, seventy-nine patients presented with ACS complicated by a CA. The mean age was 70 (SD ± 12) years, and 19 (24%) were females. On arrival to the CCL 17 (22%) were stage A, 6 (8%) were stage B, 31 (40%) were stage C, 19 (24%) were stage D, and 6 (8%) were stage E. In general, there was a stepwise increase in mortality with increasing stage (A 35% vs. B 16% vs. C 48% vs. D 68% vs. E 83%; p=0.05). There was a similar trend when stratified on arrival to the ICU (Figure 1), although of marginal statistical significance (P = 0.07). Presentation with shock stage D or E to the CCL was predictive of mortality (OR 3.7 CI 1.3-10.5; p=0.01) on logistic regression models. The use of mechanical support was not associated with increased mortality. However, the use of an Impella in patients requiring high vasopressor support at arrival to the CCL was associated with a trend towards decreased mortality (25% vs. 61%, p=0.18). Conclusion: Increasing SCAI shock stages on arrival to the CCL and ICU is associated with increased in-hospital mortality among patients who presented after a CA and underwent PCI. The SCAI classification at defined time points has the potential to serve as an important research tool.

scholarly journals Predictor of in-hospital mortality among acute coronary syndrome patients after treatment with an intra-aortic balloon pump in tertiary Hospital, Thailand

2020 ◽  
Vol 72 (6) ◽  
pp. 462-469
Author(s):  
Chorchana Wichian ◽  
Thotsaporn Morasert ◽  
Surat Tongyoo ◽  
Naruebeth Koson
Keyword(s):  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Predictive Factors ◽  
Killip Class ◽  
Hemodynamic Support ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Class Iv

Objective: Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), a mechanical hemodynamic support device, had widely been used to treat cardiogenic shock patients for several decades. However, the information about the predictive factors associated with mortality was scarce. This study aims to identify the predictive factors associated with in-hospital mortality in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients who performed IABP for their hemodynamic support during admission.Methods: We conduct a retrospective cohort study design. All admission records of ACS patients with IABP at Suratthani Hospital between October 2015 and September 2019 were retrieved.Results: Overall 75 ACS patients with IABP insertion were enrolled. Thirty-one patients died during admission, in-hospital mortality was 41.3%. From the multivariable analysis, we identified 3 predictors associated with in-hospital mortality included cardiac arrest at presentation (adjusted OR [aOR]=11.18, 95%CI: 2.42-51.57, P=0.002), a higher number of inotropes or vasopressors (aOR 6.10, 95%CI 1.36-27.24, P=0.018) and Killip class IV (aOR 5.64, 95%CI 1.01-31.39, P=0.048).Conclusion: ACS patients who required IABP support had high mortality. Cardiac arrest, Killip class IV (cardiogenic shock) at presentation and requiring a higher number of inotropes or vasopressors were independent predictive factors of in-hospital mortality.

scholarly journals In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: Effective Transition from an ICU- to CCU-Led Resuscitation Team

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Rajat Sharma ◽  
Hilary Bews ◽  
Hardeep Mahal ◽  
Chantal Y. Asselin ◽  
Megan O’Brien ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Cardiac Catheterization ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Pulseless Electrical Activity ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Health Concern ◽  
Catheterization Laboratory ◽  
Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Code Blue

Objectives. (1) To examine the incidence and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrests (IHCAs) in a large unselected patient population who underwent coronary angiography at a single tertiary academic center and (2) to evaluate a transitional change in which the cardiologist is positioned as the cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) leader in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) at our local tertiary care institution. Background. IHCA is a major public health concern with increased patient morbidity and mortality. A proportion of all IHCAs occurs in the CCL. Although in-hospital resuscitation teams are often led by an Intensive Care Unit- (ICU-) trained physician and house staff, little is known on the role of a cardiologist in this setting. Methods. Between 2012 and 2016, a single-center retrospective cohort study was performed examining 63 adult patients (70 ± 10 years, 60% males) who suffered from a cardiac arrest in the CCL. The ICU-led IHCAs included 19 patients, and the Coronary Care Unit- (CCU-) led IHCAs included 44 patients. Results. Acute coronary syndrome accounted for more than 50% of cardiac arrests in the CCL. Pulseless electrical activity was the most common rhythm requiring chest compression, and cardiogenic shock most frequently initiated a code blue response. No significant differences were observed between the ICU-led and CCU-led cardiac arrests in terms of hospital length of stay and 1-year survival rate. Conclusion. In the evolving field of Critical Care Cardiology, the transition from an ICU-led to a CCU-lead code blue team in the CCL setting may lead to similar short-term and long-term outcomes.

scholarly journals Multidisciplinary approach and early use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in patients with cardiogenic shock

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Venuti ◽  
M Gramegna ◽  
L Baldetti ◽  
F Calvo ◽  
V Pazzanese ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Multidisciplinary Approach ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Early Use

Abstract Background Despite progresses in the reperfusion strategies, the prognosis of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) remains poor with a high in-hospital mortality rate. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support systems (pMCS) reducing afterload, preload and myocardial oxygen demand, preventing compensatory tachycardia and increasing mean arterial pressure, lead to improve end-organ perfusion. Since CS progression to a refractory shock state is deleterious, timing of treatment represents a crucial issue in these patients. Purpose The aim of our study was to assess whether a multidisciplinary approach and an early use of pMCS could be safe and effective in improving CS patients' outcome. Methods We examined the outcome in terms of one-month survival of 62 patients (75.8% males, mean age 67.7±12.2 years) admitted between January and December 2018 to our Cardiac Intensive Care Unit (CICU) with cardiogenic shock due to acute coronary syndrome (ACS), acute heart failure (AHF) and other causes in 43.5%, 21.6%, 35.4% of cases respectively. For each patient, a Multidisciplinary Shock Team (CS-Team) including critical care specialists, interventional cardiologists and advanced heart failure specialists, was involved and the early use of pMCS was considered. Results Overall, 52 (83.9%) CS patients underwent pMCS implant, including intra-aortic ballon pump counterpulsation (IABP), Impella system (Impella), venous-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) in 67.7%, 46.7%, 11.3% of cases respectively. Median time from the first CS-Team contact to the pMCS implantation was 32.5 (30–60) minutes. Among ACS-CS group, AHF-CS group and CS-due to other causes group, pMCS were implanted in 25 (92.5%), 12 (92.3%) and 15 (68.1%) patients respectively. Lower extremities ischemia, gastrointestinal/intracerebral and life-threatening bleeding and ischemic stroke were observed as pMCS related adverse events in 9.7%, 6.4%, 1.6%, 3.2%, 6.4% of cases respectively. At one month, 56 (90.3%) CS patients were discharged alive while 6 (9.7%) CS patients died during the CICU stay. Conclusion A multidisciplinary approach of CS patients, contemplating an early and extensive use of pMCS, may be effective in the reduction of in-hospital mortality rate with a low and acceptable occurrence of pMCS related adverse events. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock Interventional approach to management in the cardiac catheterization laboratories

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Behnam N Tehrani ◽  
Abdulla A Damluji ◽  
Wayne B Batchelor
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Cardiac Catheterization ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Early Reperfusion ◽  
Catheterization Laboratory ◽  
Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory

: Despite advances in early reperfusion and a technologic renaissance in the space of mechanical circulatory support (MCS), cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the leading cause of in-hospital mortality following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Given the challenges inherent to conducting adequately powered randomized controlled trials in this time-sensitive, hemodynamically complex, and highly lethal syndrome, treatment recommendations have been derived from AMI patient without shock. In this review, we aimed to (1) examine the pathophysiology and the new classification system for CS; (2) provide a comprehensive evidence-based review for best practices for interventional management of AMI-CS in the cardiac catheterization laboratory; and (3) highlight the concept of how frailty and geriatric syndromes can be integrated in the decision process and where medical futility lies in the spectrum of AMI-CS care. Management strategies in the cardiac catheterization laboratory for CS include optimal vascular access, periprocedural antithrombotic therapy, culprit lesion versus multi-vessel revascularization, selective utilization of hemodynamic MCS tailored to individual shock hemometabolic profiles, and management of cardiac arrest. Efforts to advance clinical evidence for patients with CS should be concentrated on (1) the coordination of multi-center registries; (2) development of pragmatic clinical trial designed to evaluate innovative therapies; (3) establishment of multidisciplinary care models that will inform quality care and improve clinical outcomes.

scholarly journals Impact of temporary mechanical circulatory support on mortality in cardiogenic shock: an emulated target trial with a prospective, multicenter, French cohort study

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Ughetto ◽  
J Eliet ◽  
N Nagot ◽  
H David ◽  
F Bazalgette ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Heart Team ◽  
Hospital Survival ◽  
Expert Center

Abstract Background The field of temporary mechanical circulatory support (TMCS) has advanced in last decade justifying that TMCS is increasingly used for treatment of refractory cardiogenic shock (CS). Nevertheless, the efficacy of TMCS (extracorporeal life support (ECLS) and Impella) in CS remains controversial due to the lack of high-quality evidence. The aim of this prospective multicenter observational study simulating a randomized trial was to assess the impact of TMCS on the hospital mortality in patients with CS. Methods This study (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03528291) was conducted at 3 TMCS centers organized in a cardiac assistance network, one as a level 1 TMCS center (expert center), and 2 as level 2 centers (hub centers). The study was designed and led by the heart team of the expert center with input from the hub centers. All patients admitted to an intensive care unit between July 2017 and May 2020 either directly at the TMCS centers or after transfer from a non-specialized hospital, were screened for TMCS indication provided they were admitted for CS. CS was defined according to the European Society of Cardiology criteria. Were excluded patients younger than 18 years, CS after cardiac surgery, or after cardiac arrest if it was refractory or with a no flow >3 min and/or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with non-shockable rhythm, or CS in the context of myocardial infarction complications, massive pulmonary embolism, and if TMCS was contraindicated TMCS indication was decided after a multidisciplinary discussion carried out by the “heart team”. Implantation of TMCS resulted from an agreement of the heart team within the first 24 hours after admission mainly based on the initial severity of the CS, or if CS was refractory to the medical treatment. The primary outcome was in-hospital survival. A propensity score-weighted analysis was done for treatment-effect estimation. This method, which weights each patient according to their propensity score, includes all participants in the analysis. Results 246 patients with CS were included in the study: 121 in TMCS group (72% ECLS, 14% Impella, 14% both ECLS and Impella) and 125 in control group. After adjustment by a propensity score, hospital mortality was comparable in the two groups (32% TMCS group vs 27% control group; Odds ratio with TMCS, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.87 to 1.88; p=0.21). Mortality at D180 was also similar in the two group (33% vs 30% respectively; p=0.51). Thromboembolic events were significantly higher in the TCMS group (14% vs 4%; p<0.01) as well as the transfusion rate ((median (IQR); 4.0 (0.0; 9.0) vs 0.0 (0.0; 0.0); p<0.01). Conclusion In our study, the use of TMCS does not seem to improve hospital survival in patients with cardiogenic shock. Thus, TMCS, which are iatrogenic side effects providers, should be reserved for the most severe patient and discussed by a multidisciplinary team. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Flow chart

scholarly journals Clinical Characteristics and Predictors of In-hospital Mortality in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Results from the RESCUE Registry

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeong Hoon Yang ◽  
Ki Hong Choi ◽  
Young-Guk Ko ◽  
Chul-Min Ahn ◽  
Cheol Woong Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Limited Data ◽  
Inotrope Score ◽  
High Utilization ◽  
Variable Analysis

Abstract Background: In the current era of mechanical circulatory support, limited data are available on prognosis of cardiogenic shock (CS) caused by various diseases. We investigated the characteristics and predictors of in-hospital mortality in Korean CS patients.Methods: The RESCUE study is a multi-center, retrospective and prospective registry of patients that presented with CS. Between January 2014 and December 2018, 1,247 patients with CS were enrolled from 12 major centers in Korea. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results: In-hospital mortality rate was 33.6%. The main causes of shock were ischemic heart disease (80.7%), dilated cardiomyopathy (6.1%), myocarditis (3.2%), and non-ischemic ventricular arrhythmia (2.5%). Vasopressors were used in 1081 patients (86.7%). The most frequently used vasopressor was dopamine (63.4%) followed by norepinephrine (57.3%). An intra-aortic balloon pump was used in 314 patients (25.2%) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenator in 496 patients (39.8%). In multi-variable analysis, age ≥70 years, cardiac arrest at presentation, vasoactive-inotrope score >80, continuous renal replacement therapy, and mechanical ventilator were independent predictors for in-hospital mortality.Conclusions: The in-hospital mortality of CS patients remains high despite the high utilization of mechanical circulatory support. Age, cardiac arrest at presentation, amount of vasopressor, and advanced organ failure were poor prognostic factors for in-hospital mortality.Trial registration: RESCUE registry, Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02985008, Registered 01 January 2014 - Retrospectively and Prospectively registered https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02985008.

External validation and comparison of the CardShock and IABP-SHOCK II risk scores in real-world cardiogenic shock patients

2020 ◽  
pp. 204887261989523 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mercedes Rivas-Lasarte ◽  
Jordi Sans-Roselló ◽  
Elena Collado-Lledó ◽  
Víctor González-Fernández ◽  
Francisco J Noriega ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Real World ◽  
Early Recognition ◽  
External Validation ◽  
Discrimination Performance ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Coronary Syndrome

Background: Mortality from cardiogenic shock remains high and early recognition and risk stratification are mandatory for optimal patient allocation and to guide treatment strategy. The CardShock and the Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock (IABP-SHOCK II) risk scores have shown good results in predicting short-term mortality in cardiogenic shock. However, to date, they have not been compared in a large cohort of ischaemic and non-ischaemic real-world cardiogenic shock patients. Methods: The Red-Shock is a multicentre cohort of non-selected cardiogenic shock patients. We calculated the CardShock and IABP-SHOCK II risk scores in each patient and assessed discrimination and calibration. Results: We included 696 patients. The main cause of cardiogenic shock was acute coronary syndrome, occurring in 62% of the patients. Compared with acute coronary syndrome patients, non-acute coronary syndrome patients were younger and had a lower proportion of risk factors but higher rates of renal insufficiency; intra-aortic balloon pump was also less frequently used (31% vs 56%). In contrast, non-acute coronary syndrome patients were more often treated with mechanical circulatory support devices (11% vs 3%, p<0.001 for both). Both risk scores were good predictors of in-hospital mortality in acute coronary syndrome patients and had similar areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (area under the curve: 0.742 for the CardShock vs 0.752 for IABP-SHOCK II, p=0.65). Their discrimination performance was only modest when applied to non-acute coronary syndrome patients (0.648 vs 0.619, respectively, p=0.31). Calibration was acceptable for both scores (Hosmer-Lemeshow p=0.22 for the CardShock and 0.68 for IABP-SHOCK II). Conclusions: In our cohort, both the CardShock and the IABP-SHOCK II risk scores were good predictors of in-hospital mortality in acute coronary syndrome-related cardiogenic shock.

scholarly journals Clinical Characteristics and Predictors of In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: Results From the RESCUE Registry

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeong Hoon Yang ◽  
Ki Hong Choi ◽  
Young-Guk Ko ◽  
Chul-Min Ahn ◽  
Cheol Woong Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Intraaortic Balloon ◽  
Membrane Oxygenator ◽  
Intraaortic Balloon Pump ◽  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenator

Background: In the current era of mechanical circulatory support, limited data are available on prognosis of cardiogenic shock (CS) caused by various diseases. We investigated the characteristics and predictors of in-hospital mortality in Korean patients with CS. Methods: The RESCUE study (Retrospective and Prospective Observational Study to Investigate Clinical Outcomes and Efficacy of Left Ventricular Assist Device for Korean Patients With CS) is a multicenter, retrospective, and prospective registry of patients that presented with CS. Between January 2014 and December 2018, 1247 patients with CS were enrolled from 12 major centers in Korea. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results: In-hospital mortality rate was 33.6%. The main causes of shock were ischemic heart disease (80.7%), dilated cardiomyopathy (6.1%), myocarditis (3.2%), and nonischemic ventricular arrhythmia (2.5%). Vasopressors were used in 1081 patients (86.7%). The most frequently used vasopressor was dopamine (63.4%) followed by norepinephrine (57.3%). An intraaortic balloon pump was used in 314 patients (25.2%) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenator in 496 patients (39.8%). In multivariable analysis, age ≥70years (odds ratio [OR], 2.73 [95% CI, 1.89–3.94], P <0.001), body mass index <25 kg/m 2 (OR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.08–2.16], P =0.017), cardiac arrest at presentation (OR, 2.16 [95% CI, 1.44–3.23], P <0.001), vasoactive-inotrope score >80 (OR, 3.55 [95% CI, 2.54–4.95], P <0.001), requiring continuous renal replacement therapy (OR, 4.14 [95% CI, 2.88–5.95], P <0.001), mechanical ventilator (OR, 3.17 [95% CI, 2.16–4.63], P <0.001), intraaortic balloon pump (OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.07–2.24], P =0.020), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (OR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.25–2.76], P =0.002) were independent predictors for in-hospital mortality. Conclusions: The in-hospital mortality of patients with CS remains high despite the high utilization of mechanical circulatory support. Age, low body mass index, cardiac arrest at presentation, amount of vasopressor, and advanced organ failure requiring various support devices were poor prognostic factors for in-hospital mortality. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02985008.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document