Mohammad Abumayyaleh, Holger Thiele, Tienush Rassaf, Amir Abbas Mahabadi, Ralf Lehmann, Ingo Eitel, Carsten Skurk, Peter Clemmensen, Marcus Hennersdorf, Ingo Voigt, Axel Linke, Eike Tigges, Peter Nordbeck, Christian Jung, Philipp Lauten, Hans-Josef Feistritzer, Janine Pöss, Taoufik Ouarrak, Steffen Schneider, Michael Behnes, Daniel Duerschmied, Steffen Desch, Anne Freund, Uwe Zeymer, Ibrahim Akin
{"title":"经皮介入治疗心源性休克的经皮介入方法:来自ECLS-SHOCK试验的亚分析。","authors":"Mohammad Abumayyaleh, Holger Thiele, Tienush Rassaf, Amir Abbas Mahabadi, Ralf Lehmann, Ingo Eitel, Carsten Skurk, Peter Clemmensen, Marcus Hennersdorf, Ingo Voigt, Axel Linke, Eike Tigges, Peter Nordbeck, Christian Jung, Philipp Lauten, Hans-Josef Feistritzer, Janine Pöss, Taoufik Ouarrak, Steffen Schneider, Michael Behnes, Daniel Duerschmied, Steffen Desch, Anne Freund, Uwe Zeymer, Ibrahim Akin","doi":"10.1093/ehjacc/zuaf035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening complication of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Early revascularization with treating the culprit lesion improves survival. Nevertheless, the impact of access site (femoral vs. radial) on outcomes in infarct-related CS also in conjunction with extracorporeal life support (ECLS) remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This subanalysis of the ECLS-SHOCK trial included patients with infarct-related CS treated with or without ECLS, divided into femoral and radial access groups. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included renal replacement therapy (RRT), repeat revascularization, reinfarction, rehospitalization for congestive heart failure, and poor neurological outcome (Cerebral Performance Category [CPC] 3-5) within 30 days. Safety outcomes included bleeding and peripheral vascular complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 415 patients, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was initially intended through femoral (N=304; 72.9%) or radial (N=111; 26.6%) access. In the intended access site analysis, 25 patients (22.5%) in the radial group switched to femoral access, while 3 patients (1%) in the femoral group switched to radial access prior to or after coronary angiography. At 30 days, the overall mortality rate was higher in the femoral group compared to the radial group (52.0% vs. 37.8%) with a relative risk (RR) of 1.37; 95%-confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.78; p=0.011 with no significant differences in the crude rates of secondary and safety endpoint. In the analysis based on the actual access site (as opposed to intended access site used), 7.8% of patients in the ECLS arm switched from radial to femoral, while 7.5% of patients in the conservative arm switched from radial to femoral for or after coronary angiography. Mortality rates were higher in the femoral group for both ECLS (52.7% vs. 26.8%; p=0.003; RR 1.96 [95% CI, 1.16-3.32]) and conservative arms (52.2% vs. 37.5%; p=0.074; RR 1.39 [95% CI, 0.94-2.06]). In a multivariate analysis, femoral access was associated with a trend for predicting adjusted 30-day mortality (RR 1.22; 95% CI, 0.95-1.55; p=0.11).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In myocardial infarction related CS, nearly one-fifth of patients with intended radial access switched to femoral. In multivariate analysis, femoral access was associated with a trend to adversely affect 30-day mortality.</p>","PeriodicalId":11861,"journal":{"name":"European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Femoral versus Radial Approach for Primary Percutaneous Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock: A Subanalysis from the ECLS-SHOCK Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Mohammad Abumayyaleh, Holger Thiele, Tienush Rassaf, Amir Abbas Mahabadi, Ralf Lehmann, Ingo Eitel, Carsten Skurk, Peter Clemmensen, Marcus Hennersdorf, Ingo Voigt, Axel Linke, Eike Tigges, Peter Nordbeck, Christian Jung, Philipp Lauten, Hans-Josef Feistritzer, Janine Pöss, Taoufik Ouarrak, Steffen Schneider, Michael Behnes, Daniel Duerschmied, Steffen Desch, Anne Freund, Uwe Zeymer, Ibrahim Akin\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ehjacc/zuaf035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening complication of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Early revascularization with treating the culprit lesion improves survival. Nevertheless, the impact of access site (femoral vs. radial) on outcomes in infarct-related CS also in conjunction with extracorporeal life support (ECLS) remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This subanalysis of the ECLS-SHOCK trial included patients with infarct-related CS treated with or without ECLS, divided into femoral and radial access groups. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included renal replacement therapy (RRT), repeat revascularization, reinfarction, rehospitalization for congestive heart failure, and poor neurological outcome (Cerebral Performance Category [CPC] 3-5) within 30 days. Safety outcomes included bleeding and peripheral vascular complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 415 patients, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was initially intended through femoral (N=304; 72.9%) or radial (N=111; 26.6%) access. In the intended access site analysis, 25 patients (22.5%) in the radial group switched to femoral access, while 3 patients (1%) in the femoral group switched to radial access prior to or after coronary angiography. At 30 days, the overall mortality rate was higher in the femoral group compared to the radial group (52.0% vs. 37.8%) with a relative risk (RR) of 1.37; 95%-confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.78; p=0.011 with no significant differences in the crude rates of secondary and safety endpoint. In the analysis based on the actual access site (as opposed to intended access site used), 7.8% of patients in the ECLS arm switched from radial to femoral, while 7.5% of patients in the conservative arm switched from radial to femoral for or after coronary angiography. Mortality rates were higher in the femoral group for both ECLS (52.7% vs. 26.8%; p=0.003; RR 1.96 [95% CI, 1.16-3.32]) and conservative arms (52.2% vs. 37.5%; p=0.074; RR 1.39 [95% CI, 0.94-2.06]). In a multivariate analysis, femoral access was associated with a trend for predicting adjusted 30-day mortality (RR 1.22; 95% CI, 0.95-1.55; p=0.11).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In myocardial infarction related CS, nearly one-fifth of patients with intended radial access switched to femoral. In multivariate analysis, femoral access was associated with a trend to adversely affect 30-day mortality.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjacc/zuaf035\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjacc/zuaf035","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:心源性休克(CS)是急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)的一种危及生命的并发症。早期血运重建术治疗罪魁祸首病变可提高生存率。然而,在结合体外生命支持(ECLS)的情况下,通路部位(股骨与桡骨)对梗死相关CS结局的影响仍不清楚。方法:这项ECLS- shock试验的亚分析纳入了接受或不接受ECLS治疗的梗死相关CS患者,分为股骨和桡骨通路组。主要终点为30天死亡率。次要终点包括30天内肾脏替代治疗(RRT)、重复血运重建、再梗死、充血性心力衰竭再住院和神经系统预后不良(脑功能分类[CPC] 3-5)。安全性结果包括出血和周围血管并发症。结果:在415例患者中,经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)最初计划通过股骨(N=304;72.9%)或径向(N=111;26.6%)的访问。在预期的通路位置分析中,桡动脉组25例(22.5%)患者切换到股骨通路,而股骨组3例(1%)患者在冠状动脉造影之前或之后切换到桡动脉通路。第30天,股骨组的总死亡率高于桡骨组(52.0% vs. 37.8%),相对危险度(RR)为1.37;95%可信区间[CI], 1.06-1.78;P =0.011,次要终点和安全终点的粗率无显著差异。在基于实际通路位置(与使用的预定通路位置相反)的分析中,7.8%的ECLS组患者从桡动脉切换到股骨,而7.5%的保守组患者在冠脉造影或冠脉造影后从桡动脉切换到股骨。两种ECLS的股骨组死亡率均较高(52.7% vs. 26.8%;p = 0.003;RR 1.96 [95% CI, 1.16-3.32])和保守组(52.2% vs. 37.5%;p = 0.074;Rr 1.39 [95% ci, 0.94-2.06])。在一项多变量分析中,股骨通路与预测调整后30天死亡率的趋势相关(RR 1.22;95% ci, 0.95-1.55;p = 0.11)。结论:在心肌梗死相关的CS中,近五分之一的患者将原计划的桡动脉通路改为股骨通道。在多变量分析中,股骨通路与对30天死亡率产生不利影响的趋势相关。
Femoral versus Radial Approach for Primary Percutaneous Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock: A Subanalysis from the ECLS-SHOCK Trial.
Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening complication of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Early revascularization with treating the culprit lesion improves survival. Nevertheless, the impact of access site (femoral vs. radial) on outcomes in infarct-related CS also in conjunction with extracorporeal life support (ECLS) remains unclear.
Methods: This subanalysis of the ECLS-SHOCK trial included patients with infarct-related CS treated with or without ECLS, divided into femoral and radial access groups. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included renal replacement therapy (RRT), repeat revascularization, reinfarction, rehospitalization for congestive heart failure, and poor neurological outcome (Cerebral Performance Category [CPC] 3-5) within 30 days. Safety outcomes included bleeding and peripheral vascular complications.
Results: Among 415 patients, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was initially intended through femoral (N=304; 72.9%) or radial (N=111; 26.6%) access. In the intended access site analysis, 25 patients (22.5%) in the radial group switched to femoral access, while 3 patients (1%) in the femoral group switched to radial access prior to or after coronary angiography. At 30 days, the overall mortality rate was higher in the femoral group compared to the radial group (52.0% vs. 37.8%) with a relative risk (RR) of 1.37; 95%-confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.78; p=0.011 with no significant differences in the crude rates of secondary and safety endpoint. In the analysis based on the actual access site (as opposed to intended access site used), 7.8% of patients in the ECLS arm switched from radial to femoral, while 7.5% of patients in the conservative arm switched from radial to femoral for or after coronary angiography. Mortality rates were higher in the femoral group for both ECLS (52.7% vs. 26.8%; p=0.003; RR 1.96 [95% CI, 1.16-3.32]) and conservative arms (52.2% vs. 37.5%; p=0.074; RR 1.39 [95% CI, 0.94-2.06]). In a multivariate analysis, femoral access was associated with a trend for predicting adjusted 30-day mortality (RR 1.22; 95% CI, 0.95-1.55; p=0.11).
Conclusions: In myocardial infarction related CS, nearly one-fifth of patients with intended radial access switched to femoral. In multivariate analysis, femoral access was associated with a trend to adversely affect 30-day mortality.
期刊介绍:
The European Heart Journal - Acute Cardiovascular Care (EHJ-ACVC) offers a unique integrative approach by combining the expertise of the different sub specialties of cardiology, emergency and intensive care medicine in the management of patients with acute cardiovascular syndromes.
Reading through the journal, cardiologists and all other healthcare professionals can access continuous updates that may help them to improve the quality of care and the outcome for patients with acute cardiovascular diseases.