RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) are increasingly used to guide management decisions in cardiogenic shock (CS). The goal of this study was to determine if PAC use was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality in CS owing to acute heart failure (HF-CS). METHODS AND RESULTS: This multicenter, retrospective, observational study included patients with CS hospitalized between 2019 and 2021 at 15 US hospitals participating in the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI), accounting for multiple variables at admission. The association between the timing of PAC placement and in-hospital death was also analyzed. A total of 1055 patients with HF-CS were included, of whom 834 (79%) received a PAC during their hospitalization. In-hospital mortality risk for the cohort was 24.7% (nâ¯=â¯261). PAC use was associated with lower adjusted in-hospital mortality risk (22.2% vs 29.8%, OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.94). Similar associations were found across SCAI stages of shock, both at admission and at maximum SCAI stage during hospitalization. Early PAC use (≤6 hours of admission) was observed in 220 PAC recipients (26%) and associated with a lower adjusted risk of in-hospital mortality compared with delayed (≥48 hours) or no PAC use (17.3% vs 27.7%, OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.37-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: This observational study supports PAC use, because it was associated with decreased in-hospital mortality in HF-CS, especially if performed within 6 hours of hospital admission. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: An observational study from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry of 1055 patients with HF-CS showed that pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use was associated with a lower adjusted in-hospital mortality risk (22.2% vs 29.8%, odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.94) compared with outcomes in patients managed without PAC. Early PAC use (≤6 hours of admission) was associated with a lower adjusted risk of in-hospital mortality compared with delayed (≥48 hours) or no PAC use (17.3% vs 27.7%, odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.81).
Asunto(s)
Insuficiencia Cardíaca , Choque Cardiogénico , Humanos , Choque Cardiogénico/terapia , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/terapia , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Estudios Retrospectivos , Arteria Pulmonar , CatéteresRESUMEN
Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death for women in the United States. This article encompasses the epidemiology/etiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic assessment, management, and prognosis of some common cardiovascular disorders seen in women with a special focus on pregnancy.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Cardiovasculares , Embarazo , Femenino , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/epidemiología , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/terapia , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
Cardiogenic shock is a state of circulatory collapse due to low cardiac output resulting from heart failure. Heart failure in this setting may be due to left, right, or biventricular dysfunction. Acute myocardial infarctions remain the most common cause of cardiogenic shock, although in contemporary patient populations, the increasing prevalence of end-stage heart failure has resulted in a growing population of heart failure cardiogenic shock presentations. Clinicians practicing in the cardiac intensive care unit are challenged with these increasingly complex patients. Such patients often require hemodynamic support to improve end-organ perfusion and reduce mortality. Mechanical devices, collectively known as temporary mechanical circulatory support, provide clinicians with additional tools in our armamentarium to combat the increased mortality associated with cardiogenic shock. In this article, we provide an overview of cardiogenic shock and its phenotypic clinical presentations, in addition to providing a description of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices that are currently utilized in the management of cardiogenic shock.
Asunto(s)
Oxigenación por Membrana Extracorpórea , Insuficiencia Cardíaca , Corazón Auxiliar , Infarto del Miocardio , Oxigenación por Membrana Extracorpórea/métodos , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/terapia , Humanos , Choque Cardiogénico/terapiaRESUMEN
The field of interventional cardiology (IC) has evolved dramatically over the past 40 years. Training and certification in IC have kept pace, with the development of accredited IC fellowship training programs, training statements, and subspecialty board certification. The application process, however, remained fragmented with lack of a universal process or time frame. In recent years, growing competition among training programs for the strongest candidates resulted in time-limited offers and high-pressure situations that disadvantaged candidates. A grassroots effort was recently undertaken by a Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions task force, to create equity in the system by establishing a national Match for IC fellowship. This manuscript explores the rationale, process, and implications of this endeavor.
RESUMEN
Background: Cardiogenic shock is a leading cause of mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Objectives: The authors sought to compare clinical characteristics, hospital trajectory, and drug and device use between patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS) and those without (non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock [NSTEMI-CS]). Methods: We analyzed data from 1,110 adult admissions with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) across 17 centers within Cardiogenic Shock Working Group. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. Results: Our study included 1,110 patients with AMI-CS, of which 731 (65.8%) had STEMI-CS and 379 (34.2%) had NSTEMI-CS. Most patients were male (STEMI-CS: 71.6%, NSTEMI-CS: 66.5%) and White (STEMI-CS: 53.8%, NSTEMI-CS: 64.1%). In-hospital mortality was 41% and was similar among patients with STEMI-CS and NSTEMI-CS (43% vs 39%, P = 0.23). Patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest had higher in-hospital mortality in patients with NSTEMI-CS (63% vs 36%, P = 0.006) as compared to patients with STEMI-CS (52% vs 41%, P = 0.16). Similar results were observed for in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with STEMI-CS (63% vs 33%, P < 0.001) and NSTEMI-CS (60% vs 32%, P < 0.001). Only 27% of patients with STEMI-CS and 12% of NSTEMI-CS received both a drug and temporary mechanical circulatory support device during the first 24 hours, which increased to 78% and 61%, respectively, throughout the course of the hospitalization (P < 0.001 for both). Conclusions: Despite increasing use of inotropic and vasoactive support and mechanical circulatory support throughout the hospitalization, both patients with STEMI-CS and NSTEMI-CS remain at increased risk for in-hospital mortality. Randomized controls trials are needed to elucidate whether timing and sequence of escalation of support improves outcomes in patients with AMI-CS.