Impact of the Timing of Mechanical Circulatory Support on the Outcomes in Myocardial Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Subanalysis of the PREPARE CS Registry

Author:

Prunea Dan M.12ORCID,Bachl Eva1,Herold Lukas1ORCID,Kanoun Schnur Sadeek S.134ORCID,Pätzold Sascha1,Altmanninger-Sock Siegfried1,Sommer Gudrun A.1,Glantschnig Theresa1,Kolesnik Ewald1ORCID,Wallner Markus1ORCID,Ablasser Klemens1,Bugger Heiko1,Buschmann Eva1,Praschk Andreas1,Fruhwald Friedrich M.1,Schmidt Albrecht1,von Lewinski Dirk1ORCID,Toth Gabor G.1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria

2. “Niculae Stăncioiu” Heart Institute, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hațieganu”, 400347 Cluj-Napoca, Romania

3. Doctoral School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Szeged, 6720 Szeged, Hungary

4. Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter EX2 5DW, UK

Abstract

(1) Background: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in myocardial infarction-associated cardiogenic shock is subject to debate. This analysis aims to elucidate the impact of MCS’s timing on patient outcomes, based on data from the PREPARE CS registry. (2) Methods: The PREPARE CS prospective registry includes patients who experienced cardiogenic shock (SCAI classes C–E) and were subsequently referred for cardiac catheterization. Our present analysis included a subset of this registry, in whom MCS was used and who underwent coronary intervention due to myocardial infarction. Patients were categorized into an Upfront group and a Procedural group, depending on the timing of MCS’s introduction in relation to their PCI. The endpoint was in-hospital mortality. (3) Results: In total, 71 patients were included. MCS was begun prior to PCI in 33 (46%) patients (Upfront), whereas 38 (54%) received MCS during or after the initiation of PCI (Procedural). The groups’ baseline characteristics and hemodynamic parameters were comparable. The Upfront group had a higher utilization of the Impella® device compared to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (67% vs. 33%), while the Procedural group exhibited a balanced use of both (50% vs. 50%). Most patients suffered from multi-vessel disease in both groups (82% vs. 84%, respectively; p = 0.99), and most patients required a complex PCI procedure; the latter was more prevalent in the Upfront group (94% vs. 71%, respectively; p = 0.02). Their rates of complete revascularization were comparable (52% vs. 34%, respectively; p = 0.16). Procedural CPR was significantly more frequent in the Procedural group (45% vs. 79%, p < 0.05); however, in-hospital mortality was similar (61% vs. 79%, respectively; p = 0.12). (4) Conclusions: The upfront implantation of MCS in myocardial infarction-associated CS did not provide an in-hospital survival benefit.

Publisher

MDPI AG

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3