Cargando…

Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes

Patients with cardiogenic shock may require stabilization with temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) to assess candidacy for definitive therapy, including heart transplantation (HTx) or durable MCS, and/or maintain stability while on the HTx waiting list. We describe the clinical character...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Abiragi, Michael, Singer-Englar, Tahli, Cole, Robert M., Emerson, Dominic, Esmailian, Fardad, Megna, Dominick, Moriguchi, Jaime, Kobashigawa, Jon A., Kittleson, Michelle M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9965226/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36836157
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12041622
_version_ 1784896705287684096
author Abiragi, Michael
Singer-Englar, Tahli
Cole, Robert M.
Emerson, Dominic
Esmailian, Fardad
Megna, Dominick
Moriguchi, Jaime
Kobashigawa, Jon A.
Kittleson, Michelle M.
author_facet Abiragi, Michael
Singer-Englar, Tahli
Cole, Robert M.
Emerson, Dominic
Esmailian, Fardad
Megna, Dominick
Moriguchi, Jaime
Kobashigawa, Jon A.
Kittleson, Michelle M.
author_sort Abiragi, Michael
collection PubMed
description Patients with cardiogenic shock may require stabilization with temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) to assess candidacy for definitive therapy, including heart transplantation (HTx) or durable MCS, and/or maintain stability while on the HTx waiting list. We describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock who underwent intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) vs. Impella [Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA] placement at a high-volume advanced heart failure center. We assessed patients ≥ 18 years who received IABP or Impella support for cardiogenic shock from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021. Ninety patients were included, 59 (65.6%) with IABP and 31 (34.4%) with Impella. Impella was used more frequently in less stable patients, as evidenced by higher inotrope scores, greater ventilator support, and worse renal function. While patients on Impella support had higher in-hospital mortality, despite the worse cardiogenic shock in patients for whom clinicians chose Impella support, over 75% were successfully stabilized to recovery or transplantation. Clinicians elect Impella support over IABP for less stable patients, though a high proportion are successfully stabilized. These findings demonstrate the heterogeneity of the cardiogenic shock patient population and may inform future trials to assess the role of different tMCS devices.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9965226
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99652262023-02-26 Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes Abiragi, Michael Singer-Englar, Tahli Cole, Robert M. Emerson, Dominic Esmailian, Fardad Megna, Dominick Moriguchi, Jaime Kobashigawa, Jon A. Kittleson, Michelle M. J Clin Med Article Patients with cardiogenic shock may require stabilization with temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) to assess candidacy for definitive therapy, including heart transplantation (HTx) or durable MCS, and/or maintain stability while on the HTx waiting list. We describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock who underwent intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) vs. Impella [Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA] placement at a high-volume advanced heart failure center. We assessed patients ≥ 18 years who received IABP or Impella support for cardiogenic shock from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021. Ninety patients were included, 59 (65.6%) with IABP and 31 (34.4%) with Impella. Impella was used more frequently in less stable patients, as evidenced by higher inotrope scores, greater ventilator support, and worse renal function. While patients on Impella support had higher in-hospital mortality, despite the worse cardiogenic shock in patients for whom clinicians chose Impella support, over 75% were successfully stabilized to recovery or transplantation. Clinicians elect Impella support over IABP for less stable patients, though a high proportion are successfully stabilized. These findings demonstrate the heterogeneity of the cardiogenic shock patient population and may inform future trials to assess the role of different tMCS devices. MDPI 2023-02-17 /pmc/articles/PMC9965226/ /pubmed/36836157 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12041622 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Abiragi, Michael
Singer-Englar, Tahli
Cole, Robert M.
Emerson, Dominic
Esmailian, Fardad
Megna, Dominick
Moriguchi, Jaime
Kobashigawa, Jon A.
Kittleson, Michelle M.
Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes
title Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes
title_full Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes
title_fullStr Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes
title_full_unstemmed Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes
title_short Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes
title_sort temporary mechanical circulatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock: clinical characteristics and outcomes
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9965226/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36836157
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12041622
work_keys_str_mv AT abiragimichael temporarymechanicalcirculatorysupportinpatientswithcardiogenicshockclinicalcharacteristicsandoutcomes
AT singerenglartahli temporarymechanicalcirculatorysupportinpatientswithcardiogenicshockclinicalcharacteristicsandoutcomes
AT colerobertm temporarymechanicalcirculatorysupportinpatientswithcardiogenicshockclinicalcharacteristicsandoutcomes
AT emersondominic temporarymechanicalcirculatorysupportinpatientswithcardiogenicshockclinicalcharacteristicsandoutcomes
AT esmailianfardad temporarymechanicalcirculatorysupportinpatientswithcardiogenicshockclinicalcharacteristicsandoutcomes
AT megnadominick temporarymechanicalcirculatorysupportinpatientswithcardiogenicshockclinicalcharacteristicsandoutcomes
AT moriguchijaime temporarymechanicalcirculatorysupportinpatientswithcardiogenicshockclinicalcharacteristicsandoutcomes
AT kobashigawajona temporarymechanicalcirculatorysupportinpatientswithcardiogenicshockclinicalcharacteristicsandoutcomes
AT kittlesonmichellem temporarymechanicalcirculatorysupportinpatientswithcardiogenicshockclinicalcharacteristicsandoutcomes