Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chatzis, Georgios, Markus, Birgit, Syntila, Styliani, Waechter, Christian, Luesebrink, Ulrich, Ahrens, Holger, Divchev, Dimitar, Schieffer, Bernhard, Karatolios, Konstantinos
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7834787/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33536855
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/8843935
_version_ 1783642362622246912
author Chatzis, Georgios
Markus, Birgit
Syntila, Styliani
Waechter, Christian
Luesebrink, Ulrich
Ahrens, Holger
Divchev, Dimitar
Schieffer, Bernhard
Karatolios, Konstantinos
author_facet Chatzis, Georgios
Markus, Birgit
Syntila, Styliani
Waechter, Christian
Luesebrink, Ulrich
Ahrens, Holger
Divchev, Dimitar
Schieffer, Bernhard
Karatolios, Konstantinos
author_sort Chatzis, Georgios
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7834787
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78347872021-02-02 Comparison of Mortality Risk Models in Patients with Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock and Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Chatzis, Georgios Markus, Birgit Syntila, Styliani Waechter, Christian Luesebrink, Ulrich Ahrens, Holger Divchev, Dimitar Schieffer, Bernhard Karatolios, Konstantinos J Interv Cardiol Research Article 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. Hindawi 2021-01-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7834787/ /pubmed/33536855 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/8843935 Text en Copyright © 2021 Georgios Chatzis et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Chatzis, Georgios
Markus, Birgit
Syntila, Styliani
Waechter, Christian
Luesebrink, Ulrich
Ahrens, Holger
Divchev, Dimitar
Schieffer, Bernhard
Karatolios, Konstantinos
Comparison of Mortality Risk Models in Patients with Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock and Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support
title Comparison of Mortality Risk Models in Patients with Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock and Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support
title_full Comparison of Mortality Risk Models in Patients with Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock and Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support
title_fullStr Comparison of Mortality Risk Models in Patients with Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock and Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Mortality Risk Models in Patients with Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock and Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support
title_short Comparison of Mortality Risk Models in Patients with Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock and Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support
title_sort comparison of mortality risk models in patients with postcardiac arrest cardiogenic shock and percutaneous mechanical circulatory support
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7834787/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33536855
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/8843935
work_keys_str_mv AT chatzisgeorgios comparisonofmortalityriskmodelsinpatientswithpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockandpercutaneousmechanicalcirculatorysupport
AT markusbirgit comparisonofmortalityriskmodelsinpatientswithpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockandpercutaneousmechanicalcirculatorysupport
AT syntilastyliani comparisonofmortalityriskmodelsinpatientswithpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockandpercutaneousmechanicalcirculatorysupport
AT waechterchristian comparisonofmortalityriskmodelsinpatientswithpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockandpercutaneousmechanicalcirculatorysupport
AT luesebrinkulrich comparisonofmortalityriskmodelsinpatientswithpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockandpercutaneousmechanicalcirculatorysupport
AT ahrensholger comparisonofmortalityriskmodelsinpatientswithpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockandpercutaneousmechanicalcirculatorysupport
AT divchevdimitar comparisonofmortalityriskmodelsinpatientswithpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockandpercutaneousmechanicalcirculatorysupport
AT schiefferbernhard comparisonofmortalityriskmodelsinpatientswithpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockandpercutaneousmechanicalcirculatorysupport
AT karatolioskonstantinos comparisonofmortalityriskmodelsinpatientswithpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockandpercutaneousmechanicalcirculatorysupport