Dataset Information

Central Venous Pressure and Clinical Outcomes During Left-Sided Mechanical Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock.

ABSTRACT: Background: Right ventricular failure (RVF) is associated with increased mortality among patients receiving left ventricular mechanical circulatory support (LV-MCS) for cardiogenic shock and requires prompt recognition and management. Increased central venous pressure (CVP) is an indicator of potential RVF. Objectives: We studied whether elevated CVP during LV-MCS for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock is associated with higher mortality. Methods: Between January 2014 and June 2019, we analyzed hemodynamic parameters during Impella LV-MCS from 28 centers in the United States participating in the global, prospective catheter-based ventricular assist device (cVAD) study. A total of 132 patients with a documented CVP measurement while on Impella left-sided support for cardiogenic shock were identified. Results: CVP was significantly higher among patients who died in the hospital (14.0 vs. 11.7 mmHg, p = 0.014), and a CVP >12 identified patients at significantly higher risk for in-hospital mortality (65 vs. 45%, p = 0.02). CVP remained significantly associated with in-hospital mortality even after adjustment in a multivariable model (adjusted OR 1.10 [95% CI 1.02-1.19] per 1 mmHg increase). LV-MCS suction events were non-significantly more frequent among patients with high vs. low CVP (62.11 vs. 7.14 events, p = 0.067). Conclusion: CVP is a single, readily accessible hemodynamic parameter which predicts a higher rate of short-term mortality and may identify subclinical RVF in patients receiving LV-MCS for cardiogenic shock.

SUBMITTER: Whitehead EH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7485579 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Central Venous Pressure and Clinical Outcomes During Left-Sided Mechanical Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock.

Whitehead Evan H EH Thayer Katherine L KL Burkhoff Daniel D Uriel Nir N Ohman E Magnus EM O'Neill William W Kapur Navin K NK

Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine 20200828

Background: Right ventricular failure (RVF) is associated with increased mortality among patients receiving left ventricular mechanical circulatory support (LV-MCS) for cardiogenic shock and requires prompt recognition and management. Increased central venous pressure (CVP) is an indicator of potential RVF. Objectives: We studied whether elevated CVP during LV-MCS for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock is associated with higher mortality. Methods: B ...[more]

PMID: 33005634

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices, including intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs), are used in patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock despite limited evidence of their clinical benefit.ObjectiveTo examine trends in the use of MCS devices among patients who underwent PCI for AMI with cardiogenic shock, hospital-level use variation, and factors associated with use.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used the CathPCI and Chest Pain-MI Registries of the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Patients who underwent PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, were identified from both registries. Data were analyzed from October 2018 to August 2020.ExposuresTherapies to provide hemodynamic support were categorized as intravascular microaxial LVAD, IABP, TandemHeart, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, LVAD, other devices, combined IABP and intravascular microaxial LVAD, combined IABP and other device (defined as TandemHeart, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, LVAD, or another MCS device), or medical therapy only.Main outcomes and measuresUse of MCS devices overall and specific MCS devices, including intravascular microaxial LVAD, at both patient and hospital levels and variables associated with use.ResultsAmong the 28 304 patients included in the study, the mean (SD) age was 65.4 (12.6) years and 18 968 were men (67.0%). The overall MCS device use was constant from the fourth quarter of 2015 to the fourth quarter of 2017, although use of intravascular microaxial LVADs significantly increased (from 4.1% to 9.8%; P < .001), whereas use of IABPs significantly decreased (from 34.8% to 30.0%; P < .001). A significant hospital-level variation in MCS device use was found. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) proportion of patients who received MCS devices was 42% (30%-54%), and the median proportion of patients who received intravascular microaxial LVADs was 1% (0%-10%). In multivariable analyses, cardiac arrest at first medical contact or during hospitalization (odds ratio [OR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.58-2.09) and severe left main and/or proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.20-1.54) were patient characteristics that were associated with higher odds of receiving intravascular microaxial LVADs only compared with IABPs only.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that, among patients who underwent PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock, overall use of MCS devices was constant, and a 2.5-fold increase in intravascular microaxial LVAD use was found along with a corresponding decrease in IABP use and a significant hospital-level variation in MCS device use. These trends were observed despite limited clinical trial evidence of improved outcomes associated with device use.

Project description:BackgroundAs health care markets in the United States have become increasingly consolidated, the role of market concentration on physician treatment behavior remains unclear. In cardiology, specifically, there has been evolving treatment of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) with increasing use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS). However, there remains wide variation in it use. The role of market concentration in the utilization of MCS in AMI-CS is unknown. We examined the use of MCS in AMI-CS and its effect on outcomes between competitive and concentrated markets.Methods and resultsWe used the National Inpatient Sample to query patients admitted with AMI-CS between 2003 and 2009. The primary study outcome was the use of mechanical circulatory support. The primary study exposure was market concentration, measured using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, which was used to classify markets as unconcentrated (competitive), moderately concentrated, and highly concentrated. Baseline characteristics, procedures, and outcomes were compared for patients in differently concentrated markets. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between HHI and use of MCS.ResultsThere were 32,406 hospitalizations for patients admitted with AMI-CS. Patients in unconcentrated markets were more likely to receive MCS than in highly concentrated markets (unconcentrated 46.8% [5087/10,873], moderately concentrated 44.9% [2933/6526], and high concentrated 44.5% [6676/15,007], p < 0.01). Multivariable regression showed that patients in more concentrated markets had decreased use of MCS in patients in later years of the study period (2009, OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44-0.94, p = 0.02), with no effect in earlier years. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality.ConclusionMultivariable analysis did not show an association with market concentration and use of MCS in AMI-CS. However, subgroup analysis did show that competitive hospital markets were associated with more frequent use of MCS in AMI-CS as frequency of utilization increased over time. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effect of hospital market consolidation on the use of MCS and outcomes in AMI-CS.

Project description:Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, Ferenc M, Olbrich HG, Hausleiter J, Richardt G, Hennersdorf M, Empen K, Fuernau G, Desch S, Eitel I, Hambrecht R, Fuhrmann J, Böhm M, Ebelt H, Schneider S, Schuler G, Werdan K; IABP-SHOCK II Trial Investigators: Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2012, 367:1287-1296.In the current international guidelines, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation is considered a class I treatment for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. However, evidence is based mainly on registry data, and there is a paucity of randomized clinical trials.To test the hypothesis that IABP counterpulsation, as compared with the best available medical therapy alone, results in a reduction in mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock for whom early revascularization is planned.Randomized, prospective, open-label, multicenter trial.Thirty-seven centers in Germany.All adults had acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock and were expected to undergo early revascularization (by means of percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery).After enrollment, 600 patients were randomly assigned to intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP group, 301 patients) or no IABP counterpulsation (control group, 299 patients).The primary efficacy endpoint is 30-day all-cause mortality.At 30 days, 119 patients in the IABP group (39.7%) and 123 patients in the control group (41.3%) had died (relative risk with IABP, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.17; P=0.69). There were no significant differences in secondary endpoints or in process-of-care measures, including the time to hemodynamic stabilization, the length of stay in the intensive care unit, serum lactate levels, the dose and duration of catecholamine therapy, and renal function.The use of IABP counterpulsation did not significantly reduce 30-day mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock for whom an early revascularization strategy was planned.

Dataset Information

Central Venous Pressure and Clinical Outcomes During Left-Sided Mechanical Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock.

Publications

Central Venous Pressure and Clinical Outcomes During Left-Sided Mechanical Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets