Clinical outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by severe refractory cardiogenic shock assisted with percutaneous cardiopulmonary support
- PMID: 24954319
- PMCID: PMC4075395
- DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2014.55.4.920
Clinical outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by severe refractory cardiogenic shock assisted with percutaneous cardiopulmonary support
Abstract
Purpose: Limited data are available on the role of percutaneous cardiopulmonary support (PCPS) for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with cardiogenic shock. We investigated the clinical outcomes and predictors of in-hospital mortality after PCPS in patients with AMI complicated by severe refractory cardiogenic shock.
Materials and methods: From January 2004 to December 2011, we analyzed data from 96 consecutive AMI patients with cardiogenic shock assisted by a PCPS system. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The predictors of in-hospital mortality were determined by a Cox proportional-hazards model.
Results: In-hospital mortality occurred in 51 (53.1%) patients and 58 (60.4%) patients were able to be weaned from PCPS. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was performed in 61 (63.5%) patients before PCPS initiation. On multivariate analysis, age≥67 years [adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 4.74; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.27-9.93; p<0.001], CPR (adjusted HR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.11-4.85; p=0.03), lactate clearance for 48 hours<70% (adjusted HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.04-6.05; p=0.041), and unsuccessful revascularization (adjusted HR, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.85-6.90; p=0.002) were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality after PCPS in patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock.
Conclusion: In spite of PCPS management, AMI patients complicated by severe refractory cardiogenic shock demonstrated high mortality. Older age, CPR, lower lactate clearance for 48 hours, and unsuccessful revascularization were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality.
Keywords: Myocardial infarction; cardiogenic shock; percutaneous cardiopulmonary support.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.
Figures
References
-
- Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, Sanborn TA, White HD, Talley JD, et al. SHOCK Investigators. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:625–634. - PubMed
-
- Dauerman HL, Goldberg RJ, White K, Gore JM, Sadiq I, Gurfinkel E, et al. Revascularization, stenting, and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol. 2002;90:838–842. - PubMed
-
- Chung SY, Sheu JJ, Lin YJ, Sun CK, Chang LT, Chen YL, et al. Outcome of patients with profound cardiogenic shock after cardiopulmonary resuscitation and prompt extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. A single-center observational study. Circ J. 2012;76:1385–1392. - PubMed
-
- Shin TG, Choi JH, Jo IJ, Sim MS, Song HG, Jeong YK, et al. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with inhospital cardiac arrest: a comparison with conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Crit Care Med. 2011;39:1–7. - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
