Different Mechanical Circulatory Support Strategies for Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock: A Subanalysis of the ECLS-SHOCK Trial
Publikation: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift › Forschungsartikel › Beigetragen › Begutachtung
Beitragende
- Klinik für Innere Medizin und Kardiologie (am Herzzentrum)
- Herzzentrum Leipzig
- Institut für Herzinfarktforschung
- Klinikum Ludwigshafen
- Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg
- Universitätsklinikum Essen
- Asklepios Klinik Langen
- Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein Campus Lübeck
- Deutsches Zentrum für Herz-Kreislauf-Forschung (DZHK) - Standort Hamburg/Kiel/Lübeck
- Universitätsmedizin Göttingen
- Kerckhoff Klinik
- Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin
- Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE)
- Elisabeth-Krankenhaus Essen
- Helios Universitätsklinikum Wuppertal
- Asklepios Klinik St. Georg
- Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf
- Zentralklinik Bad Berka
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are frequently used in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. In clinical practice, escalation of MCS device therapy is performed in a significant proportion of patients aiming to improve hemodynamic status.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes of different MCS device strategies in the ECLS-SHOCK (Extracorporeal Life Support in Cardiogenic Shock) trial.
METHODS: The present subanalysis from the ECLS-SHOCK trial analyzed outcomes of patients treated with upfront extracorporeal life support (ECLS) only, bailout MCS, and escalated MCS therapy. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality.
RESULTS: Upfront ECLS only, bailout MCS, and escalated MCS therapy were used in 165 (78.9%), 54 (26.0%), and 27 (12.9%) patients, respectively. Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 44.8% (95% CI: 37.1%-52.8%), 61.1% (95% CI: 46.9%-74.1%), and 55.6% (95% CI: 35.3%-74.5%) in the upfront ECLS, bailout MCS, and escalated MCS group (P = 0.09). Need for renal replacement therapy was higher in the bailout MCS (35.2%; 95% CI: 22.7%-49.4%) than in upfront ECLS (7.3%; 95% CI: 3.8%-12.4%) and escalated MCS (14.8%; 95% CI: 4.2%-33.8%) (P < 0.001). Moderate or severe bleeding complications were similar in the upfront ECLS (25.5%; 95% CI: 19.0%-32.8%), bailout MCS (22.2%; 95% CI: 12.0%-35.6%), and escalated MCS (22.2%; 95% CI: 8.6%-42.3%) group (P = 0.86).
CONCLUSIONS: Bailout and escalated MCS therapy is associated with numerically higher 30-day mortality compared with upfront ECLS use only. Bailout MCS use is also associated with higher need for renal replacement therapy. (Extracorporeal Life Support in Cardiogenic Shock [ECLS-SHOCK]; NCT03637205).
Details
| Originalsprache | Englisch |
|---|---|
| Seiten (von - bis) | 691-701 |
| Seitenumfang | 11 |
| Fachzeitschrift | JACC. Cardiovascular interventions |
| Jahrgang | 18 |
| Ausgabenummer | 6 |
| Publikationsstatus | Veröffentlicht - 24 März 2025 |
| Peer-Review-Status | Ja |
Externe IDs
| Scopus | 86000784701 |
|---|
Schlagworte
ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete
Schlagwörter
- cardiogenic shock, extracorporeal life support, mechanical circulatory support, myocardial infarction, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation