Standardized Team-Based Care for Cardiogenic Shock.
cardiogenic shock
mechanical circulatory support
multidisciplinary care
shock team
Journal
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
ISSN: 1558-3597
Titre abrégé: J Am Coll Cardiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8301365
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 04 2019
09 04 2019
Historique:
received:
29
11
2018
revised:
12
12
2018
accepted:
21
12
2018
entrez:
6
4
2019
pubmed:
6
4
2019
medline:
25
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a multifactorial, hemodynamically complex syndrome associated with high mortality. Despite advances in reperfusion and mechanical circulatory support, management remains highly variable and outcomes poor. This study investigated whether a standardized team-based approach can improve outcomes in CS and whether a risk score can guide clinical decision making. A total of 204 consecutive patients with CS were identified. CS etiology, patient demographic characteristics, right heart catheterization, mechanical circulatory support use, and survival were determined. Cardiac power output (CPO) and pulmonary arterial pulsatility index (PAPi) were measured at baseline and 24 h after the CS diagnosis. Thresholds at 24 h for lactate (<3.0 mg/dl), CPO (>0.6 W), and PAPi (>1.0) were determined. Using logistic regression analysis, a validated risk stratification score was developed. Compared with 30-day survival of 47% in 2016, 30-day survival in 2017 and 2018 increased to 57.9% and 76.6%, respectively (p < 0.01). Independent predictors of 30-day mortality were age ≥71 years, diabetes mellitus, dialysis, ≥36 h of vasopressor use at time of diagnosis, lactate levels ≥3.0 mg/dl, CPO <0.6 W, and PAPi <1.0 at 24 h after diagnosis and implementation of therapies. Either 1 or 2 points were assigned to each variable, and a 3-category risk score was determined: 0 to 1 (low), 2 to 4 (moderate), and ≥5 (high). This observational study suggests that a standardized team-based approach may improve CS outcomes. A score incorporating demographic, laboratory, and hemodynamic data may be used to quantify risk and guide clinical decision-making for all phenotypes of CS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a multifactorial, hemodynamically complex syndrome associated with high mortality. Despite advances in reperfusion and mechanical circulatory support, management remains highly variable and outcomes poor.
OBJECTIVES
This study investigated whether a standardized team-based approach can improve outcomes in CS and whether a risk score can guide clinical decision making.
METHODS
A total of 204 consecutive patients with CS were identified. CS etiology, patient demographic characteristics, right heart catheterization, mechanical circulatory support use, and survival were determined. Cardiac power output (CPO) and pulmonary arterial pulsatility index (PAPi) were measured at baseline and 24 h after the CS diagnosis. Thresholds at 24 h for lactate (<3.0 mg/dl), CPO (>0.6 W), and PAPi (>1.0) were determined. Using logistic regression analysis, a validated risk stratification score was developed.
RESULTS
Compared with 30-day survival of 47% in 2016, 30-day survival in 2017 and 2018 increased to 57.9% and 76.6%, respectively (p < 0.01). Independent predictors of 30-day mortality were age ≥71 years, diabetes mellitus, dialysis, ≥36 h of vasopressor use at time of diagnosis, lactate levels ≥3.0 mg/dl, CPO <0.6 W, and PAPi <1.0 at 24 h after diagnosis and implementation of therapies. Either 1 or 2 points were assigned to each variable, and a 3-category risk score was determined: 0 to 1 (low), 2 to 4 (moderate), and ≥5 (high).
CONCLUSIONS
This observational study suggests that a standardized team-based approach may improve CS outcomes. A score incorporating demographic, laboratory, and hemodynamic data may be used to quantify risk and guide clinical decision-making for all phenotypes of CS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30947919
pii: S0735-1097(19)30495-4
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.12.084
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1659-1669Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : ErratumIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.