RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Studies had previously identified three cardiogenic shock (CS) phenotypes (cardiac-only, cardiorenal, and cardiometabolic). Therefore, we aimed to understand better the hemodynamic profiles of these phenotypes in acute myocardial infarction-CS (AMI-CS) using pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) data to better understand the AMI-CS heterogeneity. METHODS: We analyzed the PAC data of 309 patients with AMI-CS. The patients were classified by SCAI shock stage, congestion profile, and phenotype. In addition, 24 h hemodynamic PAC data were obtained. RESULTS: We identified three AMI-CS phenotypes: cardiac-only (43.7%), cardiorenal (32.0%), and cardiometabolic (24.3%). The cardiometabolic phenotype had the highest mortality rate (70.7%), followed by the cardiorenal (52.5%) and cardiac-only (33.3%) phenotypes, with significant differences (p < 0.001). Right atrial pressure (p = 0.001) and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (p = 0.01) were higher in the cardiometabolic and cardiorenal phenotypes. Cardiac output, index, power, power index, and cardiac power index normalized by right atrial pressure and left-ventricular stroke work index were lower in the cardiorenal and cardiometabolic than in the cardiac-only phenotypes. We found a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.1 for the cardiorenal and 3.3 for cardiometabolic versus the cardiac-only phenotypes (p < 0.001). Also, multi-organ failure, acute kidney injury, and ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation had a significant HR. Multivariate analysis revealed that CS phenotypes retained significance (p < 0.001) when adjusted for the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions score (p = 0.011) and ∆congestion (p = 0.028). These scores independently predicted mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate patient prognosis and treatment strategies are crucial, and phenotyping in AMI-CS can aid in this effort. PAC profiling can provide valuable prognostic information and help design new trials involving AMI-CS.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: We aim to relate the pharmacological treatment at admission of hip fracture patients with their prognosis. METHODS: We designed a prospective study including 436 hip fracture patients. We classified all the pharmacological treatment prior to admission of each patient into 25 groups according to their active agent and indications. We followed-up patients for one year for survival, emergency department visits (EDV), and in-hospital re-admissions (RAD). Differential analysis was performed by chi-square test, U-Mann Whitney test, and logistic regression. In all cases, p ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: At 30-day follow-up, 14.9% patients noted EDV, 9.2% RAD, and 3.2% dead. Patients taking beta-blockers (p = 0.046), loop diuretics (p = 0.018) or antiparkinsonian (p = 0.009) showed an increased 30-day EDV; patients taking benzodiazepines (p = 0.014), loop diuretics (p = 0.009) or antiparkinsonian (p = 0.009), an increased 30-day RAD. At one-year follow-up, 50.7% patients noted EDV, 30.7% RAD, and 22.7% dead. Patients taking oral antidiabetics (p = 0.006) noted a greater one-year EDV; patients taking major opioids (p = 0.001), benzodiazepines (p = 0.016), cardiac agents (p = 0.046), loop diuretics (p = 0.042), beta-blockers (p = 0.018), oral anticoagulants (p = 0.013) or gastric prophylaxis (p = 0.020), greater RAD; patients taking cardiac agents (p = 0.024), loop diuretics (p = 0.006) or oral anticoagulants (p = 0.015), increased 1-year mortality rate. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacological treatment noted at admission for hip fracture patients is related to the outcome, in a dose-independent way. The pharmacological treatment could be an additional parameter that could help us to improve the decision-making process and the resource assignation of hip fracture patients. A proper medication review upon admission because of a hip fracture is warranted.