Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Analysis of outcomes for 15,259 US patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMICS) supported with the Impella device.
O'Neill, William W; Grines, Cindy; Schreiber, Theodore; Moses, Jeffrey; Maini, Brijeshwar; Dixon, Simon R; Ohman, E Magnus.
Afiliação
  • O'Neill WW; Center for Structural Heart Disease, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI.
  • Grines C; Northwell Health, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, NY.
  • Schreiber T; Detroit Medical Center, Heart Hospital, Detroit, MI.
  • Moses J; Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY.
  • Maini B; Delray Medical Center, Florida Atlantic University, Delray Beach, FL.
  • Dixon SR; Beaumont Hospital Royal Oak, Royal Oak, MI.
  • Ohman EM; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. Electronic address: ohman001@mc.duke.edu.
Am Heart J ; 202: 33-38, 2018 08.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29803984
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The Impella percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) rapidly deploys mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS). We present findings from a quality improvement (IQ) registry for US patients with AMICS who received Impella devices. METHODS AND

RESULTS:

From January 2009 to December 2016, 46,949 patients from 1010US hospitals were entered into the IQ registry; of these, 15,259 had AMICS. Limited de-identified patient information, product performance, and survival to explantation were recorded. Of those with AMICS, 51% survived to explantation of PVAD. There was a significant difference between survival at explantation with quintile volume at hospitals (range 0-100%; 30% survival rate in lowest quintile vs. 76% in top quintile; P<.0001). Use of the Impella device as first-line treatment pre-PCI was associated with a 59% survival rate, compared with 52% when used as a salvage strategy (P<.001). The survival rate among those who received hemodynamic monitoring with pulmonary artery catheters was 63% as compared with 49% in those who did not (P<.0001). Overall institutional Impella volume was related to survival (56% survival at sites with >7/year vs. 51% at sites with ≤1; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS:

In this early clinical experience with Impella support for AMICS, wide variation in outcomes existed across centers. Survival was higher when Impella was used as first support strategy, when invasive hemodynamic monitoring was used, and at centers with higher Impella implantation volume.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Choque Cardiogênico / Coração Auxiliar / Monitorização Hemodinâmica Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Choque Cardiogênico / Coração Auxiliar / Monitorização Hemodinâmica Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article