Clinical use and impact of mechanical circulatory support for myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock in the Netherlands: a registry-based propensity-matched analysis.
Margriet Bogerd, Alexander M Griffioen, Jeroen J H Bunge, Elma J Peters, Sanne Ten Berg, Marijke J C Timmermans, Adriaan O Kraaijeveld, Erik Lipsic, Luuk C Otterspoor, Gabe Bleeker, José M Montero-Cabezas, Krischan D Sjauw, Martijn Meuwissen, Eric A Dubois, Robert-Jan M van Geuns, José P S Henriques
{"title":"Clinical use and impact of mechanical circulatory support for myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock in the Netherlands: a registry-based propensity-matched analysis.","authors":"Margriet Bogerd, Alexander M Griffioen, Jeroen J H Bunge, Elma J Peters, Sanne Ten Berg, Marijke J C Timmermans, Adriaan O Kraaijeveld, Erik Lipsic, Luuk C Otterspoor, Gabe Bleeker, José M Montero-Cabezas, Krischan D Sjauw, Martijn Meuwissen, Eric A Dubois, Robert-Jan M van Geuns, José P S Henriques","doi":"10.1136/openhrt-2024-002846","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite limited beneficial evidence, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is commonly used in patients with acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). In this Dutch registry, we investigated MCS usage, associated patient characteristics and clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This real-world, multicentre registry included CS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention between 2017 and 2021 in 14 Dutch hospitals. The impact on clinical outcomes was analysed after 1:1 average propensity-score (aPS) matching.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This AMI-CS registry included 2217 patients with a mean age of 66.4 (±12.3) years and predominantly male (72.8%, n=1613). MCS was deployed in 516 patients (23.3%), of which the intra-aortic balloon pump was used most frequently (n=253, 49.0%). Impella was used in 94 patients (18.2%), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in 68 patients (13.2%) and 95 patients (18.4%) received multiple devices. Patients receiving MCS were younger (64.2 vs 67.0, p<0.01), presented with lower mean arterial pressures (74.7 vs 78.4 mm Hg, p<0.01), higher heart rates (88.3 vs 81.7 beats per minute, p<0.01) and higher initial lactate levels (6.4 vs 5.4 mmol/L, p<0.01). The percentage of resuscitated patients was comparable among MCS and non-MCS patients (38.6% vs 42.2%, p=0.17). The 30-day mortality rate was higher in MCS patients (55.0% vs 34.7%, p<0.01). After aPS-matching (n=970), 30-day mortality remained higher for MCS patients (53.8% vs 44.7%, p<0.01), with an associated OR of 1.44 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.85, p<0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite limited evidence, MCS was used in a fourth of all AMI-CS patients. MCS usage was associated with an increased 30-day mortality in this real-world setting, even after propensity-matching.</p>","PeriodicalId":19505,"journal":{"name":"Open Heart","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11836808/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Heart","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2024-002846","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Despite limited beneficial evidence, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is commonly used in patients with acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). In this Dutch registry, we investigated MCS usage, associated patient characteristics and clinical outcomes.
Methods: This real-world, multicentre registry included CS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention between 2017 and 2021 in 14 Dutch hospitals. The impact on clinical outcomes was analysed after 1:1 average propensity-score (aPS) matching.
Results: This AMI-CS registry included 2217 patients with a mean age of 66.4 (±12.3) years and predominantly male (72.8%, n=1613). MCS was deployed in 516 patients (23.3%), of which the intra-aortic balloon pump was used most frequently (n=253, 49.0%). Impella was used in 94 patients (18.2%), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in 68 patients (13.2%) and 95 patients (18.4%) received multiple devices. Patients receiving MCS were younger (64.2 vs 67.0, p<0.01), presented with lower mean arterial pressures (74.7 vs 78.4 mm Hg, p<0.01), higher heart rates (88.3 vs 81.7 beats per minute, p<0.01) and higher initial lactate levels (6.4 vs 5.4 mmol/L, p<0.01). The percentage of resuscitated patients was comparable among MCS and non-MCS patients (38.6% vs 42.2%, p=0.17). The 30-day mortality rate was higher in MCS patients (55.0% vs 34.7%, p<0.01). After aPS-matching (n=970), 30-day mortality remained higher for MCS patients (53.8% vs 44.7%, p<0.01), with an associated OR of 1.44 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.85, p<0.01).
Conclusions: Despite limited evidence, MCS was used in a fourth of all AMI-CS patients. MCS usage was associated with an increased 30-day mortality in this real-world setting, even after propensity-matching.
背景:尽管有限的有益证据,机械循环支持(MCS)通常用于急性心肌梗死相关性心源性休克(AMI-CS)患者。在这个荷兰注册表中,我们调查了MCS的使用、相关的患者特征和临床结果。方法:这项真实世界的多中心登记包括2017年至2021年间在14家荷兰医院接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的CS患者。在1:1平均倾向评分(ap)匹配后分析对临床结果的影响。结果:AMI-CS登记纳入2217例患者,平均年龄66.4(±12.3)岁,主要为男性(72.8%,n=1613)。516例(23.3%)患者部署了MCS,其中使用频率最高的是主动脉内球囊泵(n=253, 49.0%)。94例(18.2%)患者使用了Impella, 68例(13.2%)患者使用了体外膜氧合,95例(18.4%)患者使用了多个装置。接受MCS的患者更年轻(64.2 vs 67.0)。结论:尽管证据有限,但四分之一的AMI-CS患者使用了MCS。在这种现实环境中,即使在倾向匹配之后,MCS的使用也与30天死亡率的增加有关。
期刊介绍:
Open Heart is an online-only, open access cardiology journal that aims to be “open” in many ways: open access (free access for all readers), open peer review (unblinded peer review) and open data (data sharing is encouraged). The goal is to ensure maximum transparency and maximum impact on research progress and patient care. The journal is dedicated to publishing high quality, peer reviewed medical research in all disciplines and therapeutic areas of cardiovascular medicine. Research is published across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Opinionated discussions on controversial topics are welcomed. Open Heart aims to operate a fast submission and review process with continuous publication online, to ensure timely, up-to-date research is available worldwide. The journal adheres to a rigorous and transparent peer review process, and all articles go through a statistical assessment to ensure robustness of the analyses. Open Heart is an official journal of the British Cardiovascular Society.