Clinical Practice Patterns in Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Shock in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry.

MedStar author(s):
Citation: Circulation: Heart Failure. 12(11):e006635, 2019 11.PMID: 31707801Institution: MedStar Heart & Vascular InstituteForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal ArticleSubject headings: *Cardiologists/td [Trends] | *Coronary Care Units/td [Trends] | *Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/td [Trends] | *Healthcare Disparities/td [Trends] | *Heart-Assist Devices/td [Trends] | *Hemodynamics | *Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping/td [Trends] | *Practice Patterns, Physicians'/td [Trends] | *Shock, Cardiogenic/th [Therapy] | Aged | Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/ae [Adverse Effects] | Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/is [Instrumentation] | Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/mo [Mortality] | Female | Humans | Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping/ae [Adverse Effects] | Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping/is [Instrumentation] | Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping/mo [Mortality] | Male | Middle Aged | North America/ep [Epidemiology] | Patient Admission/td [Trends] | Recovery of Function | Risk Factors | Severity of Illness Index | Shock, Cardiogenic/di [Diagnosis] | Shock, Cardiogenic/mo [Mortality] | Shock, Cardiogenic/pp [Physiopathology] | Time Factors | Treatment OutcomeYear: 2019ISSN:
  • 1941-3289
Name of journal: Circulation. Heart failureAbstract: BACKGROUND: Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices provide hemodynamic assistance for shock refractory to pharmacological treatment. Most registries have focused on single devices or specific etiologies of shock, limiting data regarding overall practice patterns with temporary MCS in cardiac intensive care units.CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in the use of temporary MCS among patients with shock in tertiary CICUs. While hospital-level variation in temporary MCS device selection is not explained by differences in illness severity, patient-level variation appears to be related, at least in part, to illness severity.METHODS: The CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) is a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in North America. Between September 2017 and September 2018, each center (n=16) contributed a 2-month snapshot of consecutive medical CICU admissions.RESULTS: Of the 270 admissions using temporary MCS, 33% had acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (CS), 31% had CS not related to acute myocardial infarction, 11% had mixed shock, and 22% had an indication other than shock. Among all 585 admissions with CS or mixed shock, 34% used temporary MCS during the CICU stay with substantial variation between centers (range: 17%-50%). The most common temporary MCS devices were intraaortic balloon pumps (72%), Impella (17%), and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (11%), although intraaortic balloon pump use also varied between centers (range: 40%-100%). Patients managed with intraaortic balloon pump versus other forms of MCS (advanced MCS) had lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and less severe metabolic derangements. Illness severity was similar at high- versus low-MCS utilizing centers and at centers with more advanced MCS use.All authors: Alviar CL, Baird-Zars VM, Barnett CF, Barsness GW, Berg DD, Bohula EA, Brennan J, Burke JA, Carnicelli AP, Chaudhry SP, Cremer PC, Daniels LB, DeFilippis AP, Gerber DA, Gladden JD, Granger CB, Hollenberg S, Horowitz JM, Katz JN, Keeley EC, Keller N, Kenigsberg BB, Kontos MC, Lawler PR, Menon V, Metkus TS, Miller PE, Morrow DA, Nativi-Nicolau J, Newby LK, Papolos A, Park JG, Phreaner N, Roswell RO, Schulman SP, Sinha SS, Snell RJ, Solomon MA, Teuteberg JJ, Tymchak W, van Diepen SOriginally published: Circulation: Heart Failure. 12(11):e006635, 2019 Nov.Fiscal year: FY2020Digital Object Identifier: Date added to catalog: 2019-12-04
Holdings
Item type Current library Collection Call number Status Date due Barcode
Journal Article MedStar Authors Catalog Article 31707801 Available 31707801

BACKGROUND: Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices provide hemodynamic assistance for shock refractory to pharmacological treatment. Most registries have focused on single devices or specific etiologies of shock, limiting data regarding overall practice patterns with temporary MCS in cardiac intensive care units.

CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in the use of temporary MCS among patients with shock in tertiary CICUs. While hospital-level variation in temporary MCS device selection is not explained by differences in illness severity, patient-level variation appears to be related, at least in part, to illness severity.

METHODS: The CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) is a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in North America. Between September 2017 and September 2018, each center (n=16) contributed a 2-month snapshot of consecutive medical CICU admissions.

RESULTS: Of the 270 admissions using temporary MCS, 33% had acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (CS), 31% had CS not related to acute myocardial infarction, 11% had mixed shock, and 22% had an indication other than shock. Among all 585 admissions with CS or mixed shock, 34% used temporary MCS during the CICU stay with substantial variation between centers (range: 17%-50%). The most common temporary MCS devices were intraaortic balloon pumps (72%), Impella (17%), and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (11%), although intraaortic balloon pump use also varied between centers (range: 40%-100%). Patients managed with intraaortic balloon pump versus other forms of MCS (advanced MCS) had lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and less severe metabolic derangements. Illness severity was similar at high- versus low-MCS utilizing centers and at centers with more advanced MCS use.

English

Powered by Koha