Real-world interventional outcomes for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction

IF 1.3 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
John E. Brush Jr. , Ann M. Harper , Luke C. Kohan , Zachary Bouker , Kaivalya Dandamudi , Deepak R. Talreja
{"title":"Real-world interventional outcomes for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction","authors":"John E. Brush Jr. ,&nbsp;Ann M. Harper ,&nbsp;Luke C. Kohan ,&nbsp;Zachary Bouker ,&nbsp;Kaivalya Dandamudi ,&nbsp;Deepak R. Talreja","doi":"10.1016/j.ahjo.2025.100540","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMICS) carries high mortality and remains a major concern. This concern drives use of interventions with marginal benefit and some evidence of harm. The configuration of hospital care and allocation of interventions for AMICS in our health system created a natural experiment to analyze interventional outcomes for patients with AMICS.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To compare clinical outcomes among AMICS patients treated with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) using a micro-axial left ventricular assist device and intra-aortic balloon counter-pulsation (IABP).</div></div><div><h3>Design, setting, participants, outcome measures</h3><div>In this observational study in a large health system, we used clinical registry data augmented with data from other sources to analyze 30-day and 180-day mortality as well as complications including major bleeding, and access site injury.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 505 patients with AMICS, 73 were treated with MCS and 160 with IABP. Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups except infarct location. Multivariable logistic regression showed that MCS was associated with 1.92 (CI = 1.10–3.37) times higher 30-day mortality risk and 2.03 (CI = 1.17–3.57) times higher 180-day mortality risk. In MCS-inclined hospitals as compared with IABP-inclined hospitals, patients had significantly higher 180-day mortality (45.3 % versus 33.9 %, <em>p</em> = 0.017), and bleeding rates (15.1 % versus 1.3 %, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), with trends toward higher 30-day mortality (41.4 % versus 32.6 %, <em>p</em> = 0.064) and access site injury (4.7 % versus 1.3 %, <em>p</em> = 0.063).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In this real-world setting, MCS use for AMICS was associated with higher complication rates. Before using this device for AMICS, clinicians should consider tight selection criteria to minimize harm and maximize overall benefit.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72158,"journal":{"name":"American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice","volume":"53 ","pages":"Article 100540"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666602225000436","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMICS) carries high mortality and remains a major concern. This concern drives use of interventions with marginal benefit and some evidence of harm. The configuration of hospital care and allocation of interventions for AMICS in our health system created a natural experiment to analyze interventional outcomes for patients with AMICS.

Objective

To compare clinical outcomes among AMICS patients treated with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) using a micro-axial left ventricular assist device and intra-aortic balloon counter-pulsation (IABP).

Design, setting, participants, outcome measures

In this observational study in a large health system, we used clinical registry data augmented with data from other sources to analyze 30-day and 180-day mortality as well as complications including major bleeding, and access site injury.

Results

Of 505 patients with AMICS, 73 were treated with MCS and 160 with IABP. Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups except infarct location. Multivariable logistic regression showed that MCS was associated with 1.92 (CI = 1.10–3.37) times higher 30-day mortality risk and 2.03 (CI = 1.17–3.57) times higher 180-day mortality risk. In MCS-inclined hospitals as compared with IABP-inclined hospitals, patients had significantly higher 180-day mortality (45.3 % versus 33.9 %, p = 0.017), and bleeding rates (15.1 % versus 1.3 %, p < 0.001), with trends toward higher 30-day mortality (41.4 % versus 32.6 %, p = 0.064) and access site injury (4.7 % versus 1.3 %, p = 0.063).

Conclusion

In this real-world setting, MCS use for AMICS was associated with higher complication rates. Before using this device for AMICS, clinicians should consider tight selection criteria to minimize harm and maximize overall benefit.
心源性休克并发急性心肌梗死的介入治疗结果
急性心肌梗死合并心源性休克(AMICS)具有高死亡率,仍然是一个主要问题。这一关切促使人们使用效益微乎其微、但有证据表明存在危害的干预措施。在我们的卫生系统中,医院护理的配置和对AMICS的干预措施的分配创造了一个自然的实验来分析AMICS患者的干预结果。目的比较机械循环支持(MCS)与主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)治疗AMICS患者的临床效果。在这项大型卫生系统的观察性研究中,我们使用临床登记数据和其他来源的数据来分析30天和180天的死亡率以及包括大出血和通路损伤在内的并发症。结果505例AMICS患者中,73例采用MCS治疗,160例采用IABP治疗。除梗死部位外,各治疗组的基线特征相似。多变量logistic回归显示,MCS与30天死亡风险升高1.92倍(CI = 1.10-3.37)、180天死亡风险升高2.03倍(CI = 1.17-3.57)相关。倾向于mcs的医院与倾向于iabp的医院相比,患者180天死亡率(45.3%比33.9%,p = 0.017)和出血率(15.1%比1.3%,p <;0.001), 30天死亡率(41.4%比32.6%,p = 0.064)和通道损伤(4.7%比1.3%,p = 0.063)的趋势较高。结论在现实环境中,使用MCS治疗AMICS与较高的并发症发生率相关。在使用该设备治疗AMICS之前,临床医生应考虑严格的选择标准,以最大限度地减少危害和最大限度地提高总体效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
59 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信