需要体外膜氧合支持的高危肺栓塞患者的住院结果和再入院率

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Prakash Upreti, Umesh Bhagat, Adeel A Abbasi, Neel R Sodha, Omar N Hyder, Daniel J Levine, Shashank S Sinha, Jinnette Dawn Abbott, Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula
{"title":"需要体外膜氧合支持的高危肺栓塞患者的住院结果和再入院率","authors":"Prakash Upreti, Umesh Bhagat, Adeel A Abbasi, Neel R Sodha, Omar N Hyder, Daniel J Levine, Shashank S Sinha, Jinnette Dawn Abbott, Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula","doi":"10.1097/MAT.0000000000002523","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There are limited data on the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) patients. We analyzed the use of ECMO in high-risk PE patients (defined as requiring vasopressors, with cardiogenic shock, or cardiac arrest) using the National Readmission Database (2016-2020) to assess the outcomes of in-hospital mortality, hospitalization costs and length of stay (LOS). Among 130,486 patients, 1,685 (1.3%) received ECMO. The ECMO cohort was on average younger (54 vs. 65 years), male, admitted to urban hospitals, and had higher rates of multiorgan failure. The cohort receiving ECMO support received definitive PE therapies, such as thrombolysis and thrombectomy, more frequently. In-hospital mortality was similar between the cohorts with and without ECMO (46% vs. 46%). The ECMO cohort had greater LOS (20 vs. 10 days) and costs ($622,026 vs. $142,390). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients had higher 30 day readmission rates (6% vs. 1%; hazard ratio 8.42; p < 0.001), with sepsis, PE, and heart failure being common causes. In 1,065 propensity matched pairs, the in-hospital mortality was comparable between the two cohorts (odds ratio: 0.90 [95% confidence interval: 0.75-1.08]; p = 0.25). In conclusion, compared to those not receiving ECMO support, ECMO-supported high-risk PE patients had similar in-hospital mortality but more frequent readmissions.</p>","PeriodicalId":8844,"journal":{"name":"ASAIO Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In-Hospital Outcomes and Readmissions in High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism Patients Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support.\",\"authors\":\"Prakash Upreti, Umesh Bhagat, Adeel A Abbasi, Neel R Sodha, Omar N Hyder, Daniel J Levine, Shashank S Sinha, Jinnette Dawn Abbott, Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MAT.0000000000002523\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>There are limited data on the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) patients. We analyzed the use of ECMO in high-risk PE patients (defined as requiring vasopressors, with cardiogenic shock, or cardiac arrest) using the National Readmission Database (2016-2020) to assess the outcomes of in-hospital mortality, hospitalization costs and length of stay (LOS). Among 130,486 patients, 1,685 (1.3%) received ECMO. The ECMO cohort was on average younger (54 vs. 65 years), male, admitted to urban hospitals, and had higher rates of multiorgan failure. The cohort receiving ECMO support received definitive PE therapies, such as thrombolysis and thrombectomy, more frequently. In-hospital mortality was similar between the cohorts with and without ECMO (46% vs. 46%). The ECMO cohort had greater LOS (20 vs. 10 days) and costs ($622,026 vs. $142,390). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients had higher 30 day readmission rates (6% vs. 1%; hazard ratio 8.42; p < 0.001), with sepsis, PE, and heart failure being common causes. In 1,065 propensity matched pairs, the in-hospital mortality was comparable between the two cohorts (odds ratio: 0.90 [95% confidence interval: 0.75-1.08]; p = 0.25). In conclusion, compared to those not receiving ECMO support, ECMO-supported high-risk PE patients had similar in-hospital mortality but more frequent readmissions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8844,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ASAIO Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ASAIO Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MAT.0000000000002523\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ASAIO Journal","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MAT.0000000000002523","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于体外膜氧合(ECMO)在高危肺栓塞(PE)患者中的应用的数据有限。我们使用国家再入院数据库(2016-2020)分析了ECMO在高风险PE患者(定义为需要血管加压剂、心源性休克或心脏骤停)中的使用情况,以评估住院死亡率、住院费用和住院时间(LOS)的结果。在130,486例患者中,1,685例(1.3%)接受了ECMO。ECMO组平均年龄较小(54岁vs 65岁),男性,住在城市医院,多器官衰竭发生率较高。接受ECMO支持的队列更频繁地接受明确的PE治疗,如溶栓和取栓。采用和不采用ECMO的队列之间的住院死亡率相似(46% vs 46%)。ECMO组有更大的生存期(20天vs 10天)和成本(622,026美元vs 142,390美元)。体外膜氧合患者30天再入院率较高(6% vs. 1%;风险比8.42;p < 0.001),脓毒症、PE和心力衰竭是常见原因。在1065对倾向匹配组中,两个队列的住院死亡率具有可比性(优势比:0.90[95%可信区间:0.75-1.08];P = 0.25)。总之,与未接受ECMO支持的高危PE患者相比,接受ECMO支持的患者住院死亡率相似,但再入院频率更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
In-Hospital Outcomes and Readmissions in High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism Patients Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support.

There are limited data on the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) patients. We analyzed the use of ECMO in high-risk PE patients (defined as requiring vasopressors, with cardiogenic shock, or cardiac arrest) using the National Readmission Database (2016-2020) to assess the outcomes of in-hospital mortality, hospitalization costs and length of stay (LOS). Among 130,486 patients, 1,685 (1.3%) received ECMO. The ECMO cohort was on average younger (54 vs. 65 years), male, admitted to urban hospitals, and had higher rates of multiorgan failure. The cohort receiving ECMO support received definitive PE therapies, such as thrombolysis and thrombectomy, more frequently. In-hospital mortality was similar between the cohorts with and without ECMO (46% vs. 46%). The ECMO cohort had greater LOS (20 vs. 10 days) and costs ($622,026 vs. $142,390). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients had higher 30 day readmission rates (6% vs. 1%; hazard ratio 8.42; p < 0.001), with sepsis, PE, and heart failure being common causes. In 1,065 propensity matched pairs, the in-hospital mortality was comparable between the two cohorts (odds ratio: 0.90 [95% confidence interval: 0.75-1.08]; p = 0.25). In conclusion, compared to those not receiving ECMO support, ECMO-supported high-risk PE patients had similar in-hospital mortality but more frequent readmissions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ASAIO Journal
ASAIO Journal 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
651
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: ASAIO Journal is in the forefront of artificial organ research and development. On the cutting edge of innovative technology, it features peer-reviewed articles of the highest quality that describe research, development, the most recent advances in the design of artificial organ devices and findings from initial testing. Bimonthly, the ASAIO Journal features state-of-the-art investigations, laboratory and clinical trials, and discussions and opinions from experts around the world. The official publication of the American Society for Artificial Internal Organs.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信