Chrome Extension
WeChat Mini Program
Use on ChatGLM

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

Dan M. Prunea, Eva Bachl, Lukas Herold, Sadeek S. Kanoun Schnur, Sascha Paetzold, Siegfried Altmanninger-Sock, Gudrun A. Sommer, Theresa Glantschnig, Ewald Kolesnik, Markus Wallner, Klemens Ablasser, Heiko Bugger, Eva Buschmann, Andreas Praschk, Friedrich M. Fruhwald, Albrecht Schmidt, Dirk von Lewinski, Gabor G. Toth

Journal of Clinical Medicine(2024)

Cited 0|Views20
No score
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 (R) 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.
More
Translated text
Key words
cardiogenic shock,mechanical circulatory support,myocardial infarction,mechanical circulatory support timing,in-hospital mortality
AI Read Science
Must-Reading Tree
Example
Generate MRT to find the research sequence of this paper
Chat Paper
Summary is being generated by the instructions you defined