A Standardized and Regionalized Network of Care for Cardiogenic Shock.
cardiogenic shock
hub and spoke networks
systems of care
Journal
JACC. Heart failure
ISSN: 2213-1787
Titre abrégé: JACC Heart Fail
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101598241
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2022
10 2022
Historique:
received:
18
02
2022
revised:
31
03
2022
accepted:
07
04
2022
entrez:
29
9
2022
pubmed:
30
9
2022
medline:
4
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The benefits of standardized care for cardiogenic shock (CS) across regional care networks are poorly understood. The authors compared the management and outcomes of CS patients initially presenting to hub versus spoke hospitals within a regional care network. The authors stratified consecutive patients enrolled in their CS registry (January 2017 to December 2019) by presentation to a spoke versus the hub hospital. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included bleeding, stroke, or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. Of 520 CS patients, 286 (55%) initially presented to 34 spoke hospitals. No difference in mean age (62 years vs 61 years; P = 0.38), sex (25% vs 32% women; P = 0.10), and race (54% vs 52% white; P = 0.82) between spoke and hub patients was noted. Spoke patients more often presented with acute myocardial infarction (50% vs 32%; P < 0.01), received vasopressors (74% vs 66%; P = 0.04), and intra-aortic balloon pumps (88% vs 37%; P < 0.01). Hub patients were more often supported with percutaneous ventricular assist devices (44% vs 11%; P < 0.01) and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (13% vs 0%; P < 0.01). Initial presentation to a spoke was not associated with increased risk-adjusted 30-day mortality (adjusted OR: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.49-1.55]; P = 0.64), bleeding (adjusted OR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.49-1.62]; P = 0.70), stroke (adjusted OR: 0.74 [95% CI: 0.31-1.75]; P = 0.49), or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (adjusted OR 0.83 [95% CI: 0.50-1.35]; P = 0.44). Spoke and hub patients experienced similar short-term outcomes within a regionalized CS network. The optimal strategy to promote standardized care and improved outcomes across regional CS networks merits further investigation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The benefits of standardized care for cardiogenic shock (CS) across regional care networks are poorly understood.
OBJECTIVES
The authors compared the management and outcomes of CS patients initially presenting to hub versus spoke hospitals within a regional care network.
METHODS
The authors stratified consecutive patients enrolled in their CS registry (January 2017 to December 2019) by presentation to a spoke versus the hub hospital. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included bleeding, stroke, or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events.
RESULTS
Of 520 CS patients, 286 (55%) initially presented to 34 spoke hospitals. No difference in mean age (62 years vs 61 years; P = 0.38), sex (25% vs 32% women; P = 0.10), and race (54% vs 52% white; P = 0.82) between spoke and hub patients was noted. Spoke patients more often presented with acute myocardial infarction (50% vs 32%; P < 0.01), received vasopressors (74% vs 66%; P = 0.04), and intra-aortic balloon pumps (88% vs 37%; P < 0.01). Hub patients were more often supported with percutaneous ventricular assist devices (44% vs 11%; P < 0.01) and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (13% vs 0%; P < 0.01). Initial presentation to a spoke was not associated with increased risk-adjusted 30-day mortality (adjusted OR: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.49-1.55]; P = 0.64), bleeding (adjusted OR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.49-1.62]; P = 0.70), stroke (adjusted OR: 0.74 [95% CI: 0.31-1.75]; P = 0.49), or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (adjusted OR 0.83 [95% CI: 0.50-1.35]; P = 0.44).
CONCLUSIONS
Spoke and hub patients experienced similar short-term outcomes within a regionalized CS network. The optimal strategy to promote standardized care and improved outcomes across regional CS networks merits further investigation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36175063
pii: S2213-1779(22)00242-6
doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2022.04.004
pmc: PMC10404382
mid: NIHMS1841394
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
768-781Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : K23 HL143179
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : K23 HL153771
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Tehrani has served on the advisory board for Abbott; has received research grants from Boston Scientific and Inari Medical; and has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific. Dr Truesdell has served as a consultant for Abiomed. Dr Ibrahim has received honoraria from Medtronic. Dr Shah is supported by a National Institutes of Health K23 Career Development Award 1K23HL143179; has served as a consultant for Merck, Novartis, and Procyrion; and his institution has received grant support from Abbott, Roche, Merck and Bayer for unrelated research. Dr Batchelor has served as consultant for Boston Scientific, Abbott, Medtronic, and V-Wave. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.
Références
Eur J Heart Fail. 2015 May;17(5):501-9
pubmed: 25820680
Ann Thorac Surg. 1999 Oct;68(4):1187-94
pubmed: 10543478
Circulation. 2018 Nov 13;138(20):e618-e651
pubmed: 30571511
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Jul 1;94(1):29-37
pubmed: 31104355
N Engl J Med. 1999 Aug 26;341(9):625-34
pubmed: 10460813
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019 Mar;12(3):e005618
pubmed: 30879324
Circulation. 2019 Jan 15;139(3):395-403
pubmed: 30586721
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Apr 18;69(15):1913-1920
pubmed: 28408020
Am Heart J. 2020 Jan;219:1-8
pubmed: 31707323
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Feb 22;9(4):341-351
pubmed: 26803418
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Jul 18;70(3):331-341
pubmed: 28705314
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Sep 28;78(13):1309-1317
pubmed: 34556316
Eur Heart J. 2013 Jan;34(2):112-20
pubmed: 22513777
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Nov 27;10(22):2233-2241
pubmed: 29169493
Eur J Heart Fail. 2021 Nov;23(11):1927-1937
pubmed: 34114302
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Feb 2;77(4):360-371
pubmed: 33509392
Circulation. 2018 May 22;137(21):e645-e660
pubmed: 29483084
ESC Heart Fail. 2021 Apr;8(2):988-998
pubmed: 33452763
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Apr 9;73(13):1659-1669
pubmed: 30947919
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Oct 16;72(16):1972-1980
pubmed: 30309475
Circulation. 2018 Jan 23;137(4):376-387
pubmed: 29138292
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Dec;96(7):1339-1347
pubmed: 33026155
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Jul 21;44(2):340-8
pubmed: 15261929
J Am Heart Assoc. 2015 Jan 05;4(1):e001462
pubmed: 25559014
Crit Care Med. 2018 Jan;46(1):e81-e86
pubmed: 29068858
J Card Fail. 2021 Oct;27(10):1126-1140
pubmed: 34625131
Circ Heart Fail. 2020 Feb;13(2):e006661
pubmed: 32059628
JACC Heart Fail. 2020 Nov;8(11):903-913
pubmed: 33121702
Prof Geogr. 2012 Apr 1;64(2):
pubmed: 24273346
Circulation. 2017 Oct 17;136(16):e232-e268
pubmed: 28923988
ESC Heart Fail. 2021 Apr;8(2):1295-1303
pubmed: 33605565
Am J Cardiol. 2019 Aug 15;124(4):491-498
pubmed: 31221462
Am J Cardiol. 2019 Apr 15;123(8):1214-1219
pubmed: 30777319
Circulation. 2011 Jun 14;123(23):2736-47
pubmed: 21670242
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Jun 1;93(7):1173-1183
pubmed: 31025538
J Am Heart Assoc. 2021 Sep 7;10(17):e019843
pubmed: 34423652