Dataset Information

Use of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Management of Cardiogenic Shock Before and After the United Network for Organ Sharing Donor Heart Allocation System Changes.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The new United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) donor heart allocation system gives priority to patients supported with nondischargeable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices while awaiting heart transplant. Whether there has been a change in temporary MCS use in cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) since the implementation of this policy is unknown.

Objectives

To examine whether the UNOS donor heart allocation system revision in October 2018 was associated with changes in temporary MCS use in CICUs and whether temporary MCS use differed between US transplant centers and US nontransplant centers and Canadian centers.

Design, setting, and participants

In this cohort study, 14 centers from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN), a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in North America, contributed 2-month snapshots of consecutive medical CICU admissions between September 1, 2017, and September 1, 2018 (prerevision period), and October 1, 2018, and September 1, 2019 (postrevision period). CICUs were classified as US transplant centers (n = 7) or other CICUs (US nontransplant centers or Canadian centers; n = 7).

Exposure

Revision to the UNOS donor heart allocation system.

Main outcomes and measures

Treatment with temporary MCS (intra-aortic balloon pump, microaxial intracardiac ventricular assist device, percutaneous centrifugal ventricular assist device, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or surgically implanted, nondischargeable MCS device) during hospital admission.

Results

A total of 384 admissions for acute, decompensated, heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (ADHF-CS) were included, among which 248 (64.6%) were to US transplant centers; 126 admissions (51%) were in the prerevision period and 122 (49%) were in the postrevision period. The mean (SD) patient age was 61.2 (14.6) years; 246 patients (64.1%) were male. The proportion of admissions with ADHF-CS managed with temporary MCS at US transplant centers significantly increased from 25.4% (32 of 126 admissions) before to 42.6% (52 of 122 admissions) after the UNOS allocation system changes (P = .004). In other CICUs, the proportion did not significantly change (24.5% [13 of 53 admissions] to 24.1% [20 of 83 admissions]; P = .95). After multivariable adjustment, patients admitted to US transplant centers in the postrevision period were more likely to receive temporary MCS compared with those admitted in the prerevision period (adjusted odds ratio, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.13-4.24; P = .02).

Conclusions and relevance

In the year after implementation of the new UNOS donor heart allocation system, temporary MCS use in patients admitted with ADHF-CS increased in US transplant centers but not in other CICUs. Whether this shift in practice will affect outcomes of patients with ADHF-CS or organ distribution should be evaluated.

SUBMITTER: Varshney AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7160750 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To review temporary percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for the treatment of cardiogenic shock, including current evidence, contraindications, complications, and future directions. DATA SOURCES:A MEDLINE search was conducted with MeSH terms: cardiogenic shock, percutaneous mechanical circulatory support, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, and TandemHeart. STUDY SELECTION:Selected publications included randomized controlled trial data and observational studies describing experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. DATA EXTRACTION:Studies were chosen based on strength of association with and relevance to cardiogenic shock. DATA SYNTHESIS:Until recently, there were few options if cardiogenic shock was refractory to vasopressors or intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation. Now, several percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices, including Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA), TandemHeart (CardiacAssist, Pittsburgh, PA), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, are more accessible. Compared with intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella provides greater hemodynamic support but no reduction in mortality. Similarly, TandemHeart improves hemodynamic variables but not survival. Comparative studies have been underpowered for mortality because of small sample size. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation offers the advantage of biventricular circulatory support and oxygenation, but there are significant vascular complications. Comparative studies with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation have not been completed. Despite lack of randomized controlled data, there has been a substantial increase in use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. Several ongoing prospective studies with larger sample sizes may provide answers, and newer devices may become smaller, easier to insert, and more effective. CONCLUSIONS:Mortality from cardiogenic shock remains unacceptably high despite early coronary revascularization or other therapies. Although evidence is lacking and complications rates are high, improvements and experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support may offer the prospect of better outcomes.