Outcomes Among Patients Transferred for Revascularization With Impella for Acute Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock from the cVAD Registry
- PMID: 30777319
- DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.01.029
Outcomes Among Patients Transferred for Revascularization With Impella for Acute Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock from the cVAD Registry
Abstract
The outcomes for patients transferred with cardiogenic shock and later treated with revascularization and Impella support have not previously been studied. To evaluate these outcomes, patients in cardiogenic shock were recruited from the catheter-based ventricular assist device registry, a prospective registry enrolling patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with hemodynamic support using Impella 2.5 or CP. Analysis was performed on subgroups of patients who were characterized as those directly admitted to a tertiary care hospital (direct), or those transferred from an outside hospital (transfer). Patients who were transferred with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMICS) more often presented in shock were in shock longer than 24 hours, and were more likely to be on intra-aortic balloon pump but were less likely to sustain cardiac arrest. The number of pressors, EF, diseased, and treated vessels were similar between the 2 groups. Despite baseline differences, the mortality was similar in the transfer versus direct patients (47.0% vs 53.5% p = 0.19). In a multivariate model, the factors independently associated with 30-day mortality in AMICS treated with revascularization and Impella support were cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (p <0.01), age (p <0.01), and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (p = 0.02). Whether the patient was transferred or directly admittedly with AMICS was not an independent predictor of death. In conclusion, these findings suggest that considerations should be given to transfer patients with AMICS to allow them to be treated in a contemporary manner.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Impella Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.Circulation. 2019 Mar 5;139(10):1249-1258. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.036614. Circulation. 2019. PMID: 30586755
-
Improved Outcomes Associated with the use of Shock Protocols: Updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Jun 1;93(7):1173-1183. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28307. Epub 2019 Apr 25. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019. PMID: 31025538
-
Contemporary trends in use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with acute MI and cardiogenic shock.Open Heart. 2020 Mar 4;7(1):e001214. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2019-001214. eCollection 2020. Open Heart. 2020. PMID: 32201591 Free PMC article.
-
Microaxial flow pump (Impella CP®) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.Kardiol Pol. 2024;82(7-8):702-707. doi: 10.33963/v.phj.102017. Epub 2024 Aug 14. Kardiol Pol. 2024. PMID: 39140671 Review.
-
Mechanical circulatory support with Impella versus intra-aortic balloon pump or medical treatment in cardiogenic shock-a critical appraisal of current data.Clin Res Cardiol. 2019 Nov;108(11):1249-1257. doi: 10.1007/s00392-019-01458-2. Epub 2019 Mar 21. Clin Res Cardiol. 2019. PMID: 30900010
Cited by
-
A Standardized and Regionalized Network of Care for Cardiogenic Shock.JACC Heart Fail. 2022 Oct;10(10):768-781. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2022.04.004. Epub 2022 Jun 8. JACC Heart Fail. 2022. PMID: 36175063 Free PMC article.
-
European Resuscitation Council and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine guidelines 2021: post-resuscitation care.Intensive Care Med. 2021 Apr;47(4):369-421. doi: 10.1007/s00134-021-06368-4. Epub 2021 Mar 25. Intensive Care Med. 2021. PMID: 33765189 Free PMC article.
-
Impella Versus VA-ECMO for Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Comprehensive Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analyses.J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2023 Apr 5;10(4):158. doi: 10.3390/jcdd10040158. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2023. PMID: 37103037 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The Partial Support of the Left Ventricular Assist Device Shifts the Systemic Cardiac Output Curve Upward in Proportion to the Effective Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Pressure-Volume Loop.Front Cardiovasc Med. 2020 Sep 15;7:163. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2020.00163. eCollection 2020. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2020. PMID: 33102535 Free PMC article.
-
Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Heart Failure Complicated with Cardiogenic Shock.J Clin Med. 2024 Apr 30;13(9):2642. doi: 10.3390/jcm13092642. J Clin Med. 2024. PMID: 38731171 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous