Comparison of Mortality Risk Models in Patients with Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock and Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support
Background. Although scoring systems are widely used to predict outcomes in postcardiac arrest cardiogenic shock (CS) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI), data concerning the accuracy of these scores to predict mortality of patients treated with...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2021-01-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Interventional Cardiology |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/8843935 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832554056458960896 |
|---|---|
| author | Georgios Chatzis Birgit Markus Styliani Syntila Christian Waechter Ulrich Luesebrink Holger Ahrens Dimitar Divchev Bernhard Schieffer Konstantinos Karatolios |
| author_facet | Georgios Chatzis Birgit Markus Styliani Syntila Christian Waechter Ulrich Luesebrink Holger Ahrens Dimitar Divchev Bernhard Schieffer Konstantinos Karatolios |
| author_sort | Georgios Chatzis |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background. Although scoring systems are widely used to predict outcomes in postcardiac arrest cardiogenic shock (CS) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI), data concerning the accuracy of these scores to predict mortality of patients treated with Impella in this setting are lacking. Thus, we aimed to evaluate as well as to compare the prognostic accuracy of acute physiology and chronic health II (APACHE II), simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II), sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA), the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), CardShock, the prediction of cardiogenic shock outcome for AMI patients salvaged by VA-ECMO (ENCOURAGE), and the survival after venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (SAVE) score in patients with OHCA refractory CS due to an AMI treated with Impella 2.5 or CP. Methods. Retrospective study of 65 consecutive Impella 2.5 and 32 CP patients treated in our cardiac arrest center from September 2015 until June 2020. Results. Overall survival to discharge was 44.3%. The expected mortality according to scores was SOFA 70%, SAPS II 90%, IABP shock 55%, CardShock 80%, APACHE II 85%, ENCOURAGE 50%, and SAVE score 70% in the 2.5 group; SOFA 70%, SAPS II 85%, IABP shock 55%, CardShock 80%, APACHE II 85%, ENCOURAGE 75%, and SAVE score 70% in the CP group. The ENCOURAGE score was the most effective predictive model of mortality outcome presenting a moderate area under the curve (AUC) of 0.79, followed by the CardShock, APACHE II, IABP, and SAPS score. These derived an AUC between 0.71 and 0.78. The SOFA and the SAVE scores failed to predict the outcome in this particular setting of refractory CS after OHCA due to an AMI. Conclusion. The available intensive care and newly developed CS scores offered only a moderate prognostic accuracy for outcomes in OHCA patients with refractory CS due to an AMI treated with Impella. A new score is needed in order to guide the therapy in these patients. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-fb582558d3f343cd9e18109740413cdc |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 0896-4327 1540-8183 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2021-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Interventional Cardiology |
| spelling | doaj-art-fb582558d3f343cd9e18109740413cdc2025-02-03T05:52:30ZengWileyJournal of Interventional Cardiology0896-43271540-81832021-01-01202110.1155/2021/88439358843935Comparison of Mortality Risk Models in Patients with Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock and Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory SupportGeorgios Chatzis0Birgit Markus1Styliani Syntila2Christian Waechter3Ulrich Luesebrink4Holger Ahrens5Dimitar Divchev6Bernhard Schieffer7Konstantinos Karatolios8Department of Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Care, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, GermanyDepartment of Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Care, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, GermanyDepartment of Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Care, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, GermanyDepartment of Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Care, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, GermanyDepartment of Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Care, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, GermanyDepartment of Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Care, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, GermanyDepartment of Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Care, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, GermanyDepartment of Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Care, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, GermanyDepartment of Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Care, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, GermanyBackground. Although scoring systems are widely used to predict outcomes in postcardiac arrest cardiogenic shock (CS) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI), data concerning the accuracy of these scores to predict mortality of patients treated with Impella in this setting are lacking. Thus, we aimed to evaluate as well as to compare the prognostic accuracy of acute physiology and chronic health II (APACHE II), simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II), sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA), the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), CardShock, the prediction of cardiogenic shock outcome for AMI patients salvaged by VA-ECMO (ENCOURAGE), and the survival after venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (SAVE) score in patients with OHCA refractory CS due to an AMI treated with Impella 2.5 or CP. Methods. Retrospective study of 65 consecutive Impella 2.5 and 32 CP patients treated in our cardiac arrest center from September 2015 until June 2020. Results. Overall survival to discharge was 44.3%. The expected mortality according to scores was SOFA 70%, SAPS II 90%, IABP shock 55%, CardShock 80%, APACHE II 85%, ENCOURAGE 50%, and SAVE score 70% in the 2.5 group; SOFA 70%, SAPS II 85%, IABP shock 55%, CardShock 80%, APACHE II 85%, ENCOURAGE 75%, and SAVE score 70% in the CP group. The ENCOURAGE score was the most effective predictive model of mortality outcome presenting a moderate area under the curve (AUC) of 0.79, followed by the CardShock, APACHE II, IABP, and SAPS score. These derived an AUC between 0.71 and 0.78. The SOFA and the SAVE scores failed to predict the outcome in this particular setting of refractory CS after OHCA due to an AMI. Conclusion. The available intensive care and newly developed CS scores offered only a moderate prognostic accuracy for outcomes in OHCA patients with refractory CS due to an AMI treated with Impella. A new score is needed in order to guide the therapy in these patients.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/8843935 |
| spellingShingle | Georgios Chatzis Birgit Markus Styliani Syntila Christian Waechter Ulrich Luesebrink Holger Ahrens Dimitar Divchev Bernhard Schieffer Konstantinos Karatolios Comparison of Mortality Risk Models in Patients with Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock and Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Journal of Interventional Cardiology |
| title | Comparison of Mortality Risk Models in Patients with Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock and Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support |
| title_full | Comparison of Mortality Risk Models in Patients with Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock and Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Mortality Risk Models in Patients with Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock and Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Mortality Risk Models in Patients with Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock and Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support |
| title_short | Comparison of Mortality Risk Models in Patients with Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock and Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support |
| title_sort | comparison of mortality risk models in patients with postcardiac arrest cardiogenic shock and percutaneous mechanical circulatory support |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/8843935 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT georgioschatzis comparisonofmortalityriskmodelsinpatientswithpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockandpercutaneousmechanicalcirculatorysupport AT birgitmarkus comparisonofmortalityriskmodelsinpatientswithpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockandpercutaneousmechanicalcirculatorysupport AT stylianisyntila comparisonofmortalityriskmodelsinpatientswithpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockandpercutaneousmechanicalcirculatorysupport AT christianwaechter comparisonofmortalityriskmodelsinpatientswithpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockandpercutaneousmechanicalcirculatorysupport AT ulrichluesebrink comparisonofmortalityriskmodelsinpatientswithpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockandpercutaneousmechanicalcirculatorysupport AT holgerahrens comparisonofmortalityriskmodelsinpatientswithpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockandpercutaneousmechanicalcirculatorysupport AT dimitardivchev comparisonofmortalityriskmodelsinpatientswithpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockandpercutaneousmechanicalcirculatorysupport AT bernhardschieffer comparisonofmortalityriskmodelsinpatientswithpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockandpercutaneousmechanicalcirculatorysupport AT konstantinoskaratolios comparisonofmortalityriskmodelsinpatientswithpostcardiacarrestcardiogenicshockandpercutaneousmechanicalcirculatorysupport |