Cargando…

Prognostic Impact of Active Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction, Results from the Culprit-Shock Trial

Objectives: To analyze the use and prognostic impact of active mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in a large prospective contemporary cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Background: Although increasingly used in clinical practice,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Feistritzer, Hans-Josef, Desch, Steffen, Freund, Anne, Poess, Janine, Zeymer, Uwe, Ouarrak, Taoufik, Schneider, Steffen, de Waha-Thiele, Suzanne, Fuernau, Georg, Eitel, Ingo, Noc, Marko, Stepinska, Janina, Huber, Kurt, Thiele, Holger
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7356113/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32599815
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9061976
_version_ 1783558424753078272
author Feistritzer, Hans-Josef
Desch, Steffen
Freund, Anne
Poess, Janine
Zeymer, Uwe
Ouarrak, Taoufik
Schneider, Steffen
de Waha-Thiele, Suzanne
Fuernau, Georg
Eitel, Ingo
Noc, Marko
Stepinska, Janina
Huber, Kurt
Thiele, Holger
author_facet Feistritzer, Hans-Josef
Desch, Steffen
Freund, Anne
Poess, Janine
Zeymer, Uwe
Ouarrak, Taoufik
Schneider, Steffen
de Waha-Thiele, Suzanne
Fuernau, Georg
Eitel, Ingo
Noc, Marko
Stepinska, Janina
Huber, Kurt
Thiele, Holger
author_sort Feistritzer, Hans-Josef
collection PubMed
description Objectives: To analyze the use and prognostic impact of active mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in a large prospective contemporary cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Background: Although increasingly used in clinical practice, data on the efficacy and safety of active MCS devices in patients with CS complicating AMI are limited. Methods: This is a predefined subanalysis of the CULPRIT-SHOCK randomized trial and prospective registry. Patients with CS, AMI and multivessel coronary artery disease were categorized in two groups: (1) use of at least one active MCS device vs. (2) no active MCS or use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) only. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death or renal replacement therapy at 30 days. Results: Two hundred of 1055 (19%) patients received at least one active MCS device (n = 112 Impella(®); n = 95 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); n = 6 other devices). The primary endpoint occurred significantly more often in patients treated with active MCS devices compared with those without active MCS devices (142 of 197, 72% vs. 374 of 827, 45%; p < 0.001). All-cause mortality and bleeding rates were significantly higher in the active MCS group (all p < 0.001). After multivariable adjustment, the use of active MCS was significantly associated with the primary endpoint (odds ratio (OR) 4.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7–5.9; p < 0.001). Conclusions: In the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, active MCS devices were used in approximately one fifth of patients. Patients treated with active MCS devices showed worse outcome at 30 days and 1 year.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7356113
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73561132020-07-31 Prognostic Impact of Active Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction, Results from the Culprit-Shock Trial Feistritzer, Hans-Josef Desch, Steffen Freund, Anne Poess, Janine Zeymer, Uwe Ouarrak, Taoufik Schneider, Steffen de Waha-Thiele, Suzanne Fuernau, Georg Eitel, Ingo Noc, Marko Stepinska, Janina Huber, Kurt Thiele, Holger J Clin Med Article Objectives: To analyze the use and prognostic impact of active mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in a large prospective contemporary cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Background: Although increasingly used in clinical practice, data on the efficacy and safety of active MCS devices in patients with CS complicating AMI are limited. Methods: This is a predefined subanalysis of the CULPRIT-SHOCK randomized trial and prospective registry. Patients with CS, AMI and multivessel coronary artery disease were categorized in two groups: (1) use of at least one active MCS device vs. (2) no active MCS or use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) only. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death or renal replacement therapy at 30 days. Results: Two hundred of 1055 (19%) patients received at least one active MCS device (n = 112 Impella(®); n = 95 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); n = 6 other devices). The primary endpoint occurred significantly more often in patients treated with active MCS devices compared with those without active MCS devices (142 of 197, 72% vs. 374 of 827, 45%; p < 0.001). All-cause mortality and bleeding rates were significantly higher in the active MCS group (all p < 0.001). After multivariable adjustment, the use of active MCS was significantly associated with the primary endpoint (odds ratio (OR) 4.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7–5.9; p < 0.001). Conclusions: In the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, active MCS devices were used in approximately one fifth of patients. Patients treated with active MCS devices showed worse outcome at 30 days and 1 year. MDPI 2020-06-24 /pmc/articles/PMC7356113/ /pubmed/32599815 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9061976 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Feistritzer, Hans-Josef
Desch, Steffen
Freund, Anne
Poess, Janine
Zeymer, Uwe
Ouarrak, Taoufik
Schneider, Steffen
de Waha-Thiele, Suzanne
Fuernau, Georg
Eitel, Ingo
Noc, Marko
Stepinska, Janina
Huber, Kurt
Thiele, Holger
Prognostic Impact of Active Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction, Results from the Culprit-Shock Trial
title Prognostic Impact of Active Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction, Results from the Culprit-Shock Trial
title_full Prognostic Impact of Active Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction, Results from the Culprit-Shock Trial
title_fullStr Prognostic Impact of Active Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction, Results from the Culprit-Shock Trial
title_full_unstemmed Prognostic Impact of Active Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction, Results from the Culprit-Shock Trial
title_short Prognostic Impact of Active Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction, Results from the Culprit-Shock Trial
title_sort prognostic impact of active mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction, results from the culprit-shock trial
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7356113/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32599815
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9061976
work_keys_str_mv AT feistritzerhansjosef prognosticimpactofactivemechanicalcirculatorysupportincardiogenicshockcomplicatingacutemyocardialinfarctionresultsfromtheculpritshocktrial
AT deschsteffen prognosticimpactofactivemechanicalcirculatorysupportincardiogenicshockcomplicatingacutemyocardialinfarctionresultsfromtheculpritshocktrial
AT freundanne prognosticimpactofactivemechanicalcirculatorysupportincardiogenicshockcomplicatingacutemyocardialinfarctionresultsfromtheculpritshocktrial
AT poessjanine prognosticimpactofactivemechanicalcirculatorysupportincardiogenicshockcomplicatingacutemyocardialinfarctionresultsfromtheculpritshocktrial
AT zeymeruwe prognosticimpactofactivemechanicalcirculatorysupportincardiogenicshockcomplicatingacutemyocardialinfarctionresultsfromtheculpritshocktrial
AT ouarraktaoufik prognosticimpactofactivemechanicalcirculatorysupportincardiogenicshockcomplicatingacutemyocardialinfarctionresultsfromtheculpritshocktrial
AT schneidersteffen prognosticimpactofactivemechanicalcirculatorysupportincardiogenicshockcomplicatingacutemyocardialinfarctionresultsfromtheculpritshocktrial
AT dewahathielesuzanne prognosticimpactofactivemechanicalcirculatorysupportincardiogenicshockcomplicatingacutemyocardialinfarctionresultsfromtheculpritshocktrial
AT fuernaugeorg prognosticimpactofactivemechanicalcirculatorysupportincardiogenicshockcomplicatingacutemyocardialinfarctionresultsfromtheculpritshocktrial
AT eitelingo prognosticimpactofactivemechanicalcirculatorysupportincardiogenicshockcomplicatingacutemyocardialinfarctionresultsfromtheculpritshocktrial
AT nocmarko prognosticimpactofactivemechanicalcirculatorysupportincardiogenicshockcomplicatingacutemyocardialinfarctionresultsfromtheculpritshocktrial
AT stepinskajanina prognosticimpactofactivemechanicalcirculatorysupportincardiogenicshockcomplicatingacutemyocardialinfarctionresultsfromtheculpritshocktrial
AT huberkurt prognosticimpactofactivemechanicalcirculatorysupportincardiogenicshockcomplicatingacutemyocardialinfarctionresultsfromtheculpritshocktrial
AT thieleholger prognosticimpactofactivemechanicalcirculatorysupportincardiogenicshockcomplicatingacutemyocardialinfarctionresultsfromtheculpritshocktrial