Clinical outcome of mechanical circulatory support for refractory cardiogenic shock in the current era

Hiroo Takayama, Lauren Truby, Michael Koekort, Nir Uriel, Paolo Colombo, Donna M. Mancini, Ulrich P. Jorde, Yoshifumi Naka

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

100 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Mortality for refractory cardiogenic shock (RCS) remains high. However, with improving mechanical circulatory support device (MCSD) technology, the treatment options for RCS patients are expanding. We report on a recent 5-year single-center experience with MCSD for treatment of RCS. Methods: This study was a retrospective review of adult patients who required an MCSD due to RCS in the past 5 years. We excluded those patients with post-cardiotomy shock and post-transplant cardiac graft dysfunction. In the setting of RCS, a short-term ventricular assist device (VAD) was inserted as a bridge-to-decision device. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) was chosen in cases of unknown neurologic status, complete hemodynamic collapse or severe coagulopathy. Results: From January 2007 through January 2012, 90 patients received an MCSD for RCS, 21 (23%) of whom had active cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The etiology of RCS included acute myocardial infarction in 49% and acute decompensated heart failure in 27%. Mean age was 53±14 years, 71% were male, and 60% had an intra-aortic balloon pump. The initial approach utilized was short-term VAD in 49% and VA ECMO in 51%. Median length of support was 8 days (IQR 4 to 18 days). Exchange to implantable VAD was performed in 26% of patients. Other destinations included myocardial recovery in 18% and heart transplantation in 11%. Survival to hospital discharge was 49%. Multivariate analysis showed ongoing CPR to be an independent risk factor for mortality (OR = 5.79, 95% CI 1.285 to 26.08, p = 0.022). Conclusions: In the current era, roughly half of the patients who need an MCSD for RCS survive, and roughly half of these survivors require an implantable VAD. Ongoing CPR is predictive of in-hospital mortality.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)106-111
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Heart and Lung Transplantation
Volume32
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cardiogenic Shock
Heart-Assist Devices
Equipment and Supplies
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
Transplants
Mortality
Heart Transplantation
Hospital Mortality
Nervous System
Survivors
Shock
Multivariate Analysis
Heart Failure
Hemodynamics
Myocardial Infarction
Technology
Survival
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • bridge-to-decision
  • cardiogenic shock
  • cardiopulmonary resuscitation
  • extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
  • mechanical circulatory support device
  • ventricular assist device

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Transplantation
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Clinical outcome of mechanical circulatory support for refractory cardiogenic shock in the current era. / Takayama, Hiroo; Truby, Lauren; Koekort, Michael; Uriel, Nir; Colombo, Paolo; Mancini, Donna M.; Jorde, Ulrich P.; Naka, Yoshifumi.

In: Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, Vol. 32, No. 1, 01.2013, p. 106-111.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Takayama, Hiroo ; Truby, Lauren ; Koekort, Michael ; Uriel, Nir ; Colombo, Paolo ; Mancini, Donna M. ; Jorde, Ulrich P. ; Naka, Yoshifumi. / Clinical outcome of mechanical circulatory support for refractory cardiogenic shock in the current era. In: Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation. 2013 ; Vol. 32, No. 1. pp. 106-111.
@article{a6d83211882e404385d649b76526f5b6,
title = "Clinical outcome of mechanical circulatory support for refractory cardiogenic shock in the current era",
abstract = "Background: Mortality for refractory cardiogenic shock (RCS) remains high. However, with improving mechanical circulatory support device (MCSD) technology, the treatment options for RCS patients are expanding. We report on a recent 5-year single-center experience with MCSD for treatment of RCS. Methods: This study was a retrospective review of adult patients who required an MCSD due to RCS in the past 5 years. We excluded those patients with post-cardiotomy shock and post-transplant cardiac graft dysfunction. In the setting of RCS, a short-term ventricular assist device (VAD) was inserted as a bridge-to-decision device. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) was chosen in cases of unknown neurologic status, complete hemodynamic collapse or severe coagulopathy. Results: From January 2007 through January 2012, 90 patients received an MCSD for RCS, 21 (23{\%}) of whom had active cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The etiology of RCS included acute myocardial infarction in 49{\%} and acute decompensated heart failure in 27{\%}. Mean age was 53±14 years, 71{\%} were male, and 60{\%} had an intra-aortic balloon pump. The initial approach utilized was short-term VAD in 49{\%} and VA ECMO in 51{\%}. Median length of support was 8 days (IQR 4 to 18 days). Exchange to implantable VAD was performed in 26{\%} of patients. Other destinations included myocardial recovery in 18{\%} and heart transplantation in 11{\%}. Survival to hospital discharge was 49{\%}. Multivariate analysis showed ongoing CPR to be an independent risk factor for mortality (OR = 5.79, 95{\%} CI 1.285 to 26.08, p = 0.022). Conclusions: In the current era, roughly half of the patients who need an MCSD for RCS survive, and roughly half of these survivors require an implantable VAD. Ongoing CPR is predictive of in-hospital mortality.",
keywords = "bridge-to-decision, cardiogenic shock, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, mechanical circulatory support device, ventricular assist device",
author = "Hiroo Takayama and Lauren Truby and Michael Koekort and Nir Uriel and Paolo Colombo and Mancini, {Donna M.} and Jorde, {Ulrich P.} and Yoshifumi Naka",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.healun.2012.10.005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "106--111",
journal = "Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation",
issn = "1053-2498",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical outcome of mechanical circulatory support for refractory cardiogenic shock in the current era

AU - Takayama, Hiroo

AU - Truby, Lauren

AU - Koekort, Michael

AU - Uriel, Nir

AU - Colombo, Paolo

AU - Mancini, Donna M.

AU - Jorde, Ulrich P.

AU - Naka, Yoshifumi

PY - 2013/1

Y1 - 2013/1

N2 - Background: Mortality for refractory cardiogenic shock (RCS) remains high. However, with improving mechanical circulatory support device (MCSD) technology, the treatment options for RCS patients are expanding. We report on a recent 5-year single-center experience with MCSD for treatment of RCS. Methods: This study was a retrospective review of adult patients who required an MCSD due to RCS in the past 5 years. We excluded those patients with post-cardiotomy shock and post-transplant cardiac graft dysfunction. In the setting of RCS, a short-term ventricular assist device (VAD) was inserted as a bridge-to-decision device. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) was chosen in cases of unknown neurologic status, complete hemodynamic collapse or severe coagulopathy. Results: From January 2007 through January 2012, 90 patients received an MCSD for RCS, 21 (23%) of whom had active cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The etiology of RCS included acute myocardial infarction in 49% and acute decompensated heart failure in 27%. Mean age was 53±14 years, 71% were male, and 60% had an intra-aortic balloon pump. The initial approach utilized was short-term VAD in 49% and VA ECMO in 51%. Median length of support was 8 days (IQR 4 to 18 days). Exchange to implantable VAD was performed in 26% of patients. Other destinations included myocardial recovery in 18% and heart transplantation in 11%. Survival to hospital discharge was 49%. Multivariate analysis showed ongoing CPR to be an independent risk factor for mortality (OR = 5.79, 95% CI 1.285 to 26.08, p = 0.022). Conclusions: In the current era, roughly half of the patients who need an MCSD for RCS survive, and roughly half of these survivors require an implantable VAD. Ongoing CPR is predictive of in-hospital mortality.

AB - Background: Mortality for refractory cardiogenic shock (RCS) remains high. However, with improving mechanical circulatory support device (MCSD) technology, the treatment options for RCS patients are expanding. We report on a recent 5-year single-center experience with MCSD for treatment of RCS. Methods: This study was a retrospective review of adult patients who required an MCSD due to RCS in the past 5 years. We excluded those patients with post-cardiotomy shock and post-transplant cardiac graft dysfunction. In the setting of RCS, a short-term ventricular assist device (VAD) was inserted as a bridge-to-decision device. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) was chosen in cases of unknown neurologic status, complete hemodynamic collapse or severe coagulopathy. Results: From January 2007 through January 2012, 90 patients received an MCSD for RCS, 21 (23%) of whom had active cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The etiology of RCS included acute myocardial infarction in 49% and acute decompensated heart failure in 27%. Mean age was 53±14 years, 71% were male, and 60% had an intra-aortic balloon pump. The initial approach utilized was short-term VAD in 49% and VA ECMO in 51%. Median length of support was 8 days (IQR 4 to 18 days). Exchange to implantable VAD was performed in 26% of patients. Other destinations included myocardial recovery in 18% and heart transplantation in 11%. Survival to hospital discharge was 49%. Multivariate analysis showed ongoing CPR to be an independent risk factor for mortality (OR = 5.79, 95% CI 1.285 to 26.08, p = 0.022). Conclusions: In the current era, roughly half of the patients who need an MCSD for RCS survive, and roughly half of these survivors require an implantable VAD. Ongoing CPR is predictive of in-hospital mortality.

KW - bridge-to-decision

KW - cardiogenic shock

KW - cardiopulmonary resuscitation

KW - extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

KW - mechanical circulatory support device

KW - ventricular assist device

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84871380138&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84871380138&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.healun.2012.10.005

DO - 10.1016/j.healun.2012.10.005

M3 - Article

C2 - 23260710

AN - SCOPUS:84871380138

VL - 32

SP - 106

EP - 111

JO - Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation

JF - Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation

SN - 1053-2498

IS - 1

ER -