Mukunthan Murthi MD, Naveen Prasath MD, Anisha Memdani MD, Aniesh Bobba MD, Laith Ali MD, Steve Attanasio MD
{"title":"根据转院情况比较接受左心室机械循环支持装置的ST段抬高心肌梗死心源性休克患者的院内预后。","authors":"Mukunthan Murthi MD, Naveen Prasath MD, Anisha Memdani MD, Aniesh Bobba MD, Laith Ali MD, Steve Attanasio MD","doi":"10.1002/ccd.31169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>We aimed to compare outcomes in patients who receive on-site left ventricular mechanical support versus those transferred to other facilities for mechanical support in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with cardiogenic shock.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This retrospective study analyzed data from the 2016 to 2020 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. We identified patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock who received Impella and LVAD placement during their hospital stay. They were divided into two groups: those with in-house (direct) placement and those transferred to higher-level medical centers. The primary goal was to compare mortality rates between these groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>During the study, 15,934 (75.2%) received in-house left ventricular support, while 5255 (24.8%) were transferred. Mean age (63 vs. 64 years) and female percentage (25 vs. 26%) were similar. The average time from admission to receiving LV support was 0.8 days for direct group versus 2.8 days for transfer group (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Transferred patients had a higher rate of prior heart failure (68 vs. 79%, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and peripheral vascular disease (10 vs. 14%, <i>p</i> < 0.001) but a lower rate of hypertension (23 vs. 17%, <i>p</i> = 0.003). There were no significant differences in other comorbidities. Primary outcome mortality did not significantly differ (44.9 vs. 44.2, <i>p</i> = 0.66). After multivariate analysis, transferred patients had higher rates of ECMO usage, acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, major bleeding, and ischemic stroke. Length of stay (8 vs. 15 days, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and total charges ($391,472 vs. $581,183, <i>p</i> < 0.001) were significantly higher in the transferred group.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Among STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock, our study found no significant difference in mortality between patients transferred for and those with on-site LV support. Those transferred patients experienced more complications, longer length of stay, and increased hospital costs.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":9650,"journal":{"name":"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of in-hospital outcomes of ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with cardiogenic shock receiving left ventricular mechanical circulatory support devices based on transfer status\",\"authors\":\"Mukunthan Murthi MD, Naveen Prasath MD, Anisha Memdani MD, Aniesh Bobba MD, Laith Ali MD, Steve Attanasio MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ccd.31169\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>We aimed to compare outcomes in patients who receive on-site left ventricular mechanical support versus those transferred to other facilities for mechanical support in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with cardiogenic shock.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This retrospective study analyzed data from the 2016 to 2020 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. We identified patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock who received Impella and LVAD placement during their hospital stay. They were divided into two groups: those with in-house (direct) placement and those transferred to higher-level medical centers. The primary goal was to compare mortality rates between these groups.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>During the study, 15,934 (75.2%) received in-house left ventricular support, while 5255 (24.8%) were transferred. Mean age (63 vs. 64 years) and female percentage (25 vs. 26%) were similar. The average time from admission to receiving LV support was 0.8 days for direct group versus 2.8 days for transfer group (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Transferred patients had a higher rate of prior heart failure (68 vs. 79%, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and peripheral vascular disease (10 vs. 14%, <i>p</i> < 0.001) but a lower rate of hypertension (23 vs. 17%, <i>p</i> = 0.003). There were no significant differences in other comorbidities. Primary outcome mortality did not significantly differ (44.9 vs. 44.2, <i>p</i> = 0.66). After multivariate analysis, transferred patients had higher rates of ECMO usage, acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, major bleeding, and ischemic stroke. Length of stay (8 vs. 15 days, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and total charges ($391,472 vs. $581,183, <i>p</i> < 0.001) were significantly higher in the transferred group.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Among STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock, our study found no significant difference in mortality between patients transferred for and those with on-site LV support. Those transferred patients experienced more complications, longer length of stay, and increased hospital costs.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9650,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ccd.31169\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ccd.31169","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of in-hospital outcomes of ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with cardiogenic shock receiving left ventricular mechanical circulatory support devices based on transfer status
Background
We aimed to compare outcomes in patients who receive on-site left ventricular mechanical support versus those transferred to other facilities for mechanical support in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with cardiogenic shock.
Methods
This retrospective study analyzed data from the 2016 to 2020 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. We identified patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock who received Impella and LVAD placement during their hospital stay. They were divided into two groups: those with in-house (direct) placement and those transferred to higher-level medical centers. The primary goal was to compare mortality rates between these groups.
Results
During the study, 15,934 (75.2%) received in-house left ventricular support, while 5255 (24.8%) were transferred. Mean age (63 vs. 64 years) and female percentage (25 vs. 26%) were similar. The average time from admission to receiving LV support was 0.8 days for direct group versus 2.8 days for transfer group (p < 0.001). Transferred patients had a higher rate of prior heart failure (68 vs. 79%, p < 0.001) and peripheral vascular disease (10 vs. 14%, p < 0.001) but a lower rate of hypertension (23 vs. 17%, p = 0.003). There were no significant differences in other comorbidities. Primary outcome mortality did not significantly differ (44.9 vs. 44.2, p = 0.66). After multivariate analysis, transferred patients had higher rates of ECMO usage, acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, major bleeding, and ischemic stroke. Length of stay (8 vs. 15 days, p < 0.001) and total charges ($391,472 vs. $581,183, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the transferred group.
Conclusion
Among STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock, our study found no significant difference in mortality between patients transferred for and those with on-site LV support. Those transferred patients experienced more complications, longer length of stay, and increased hospital costs.
期刊介绍:
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions is an international journal covering the broad field of cardiovascular diseases. Subject material includes basic and clinical information that is derived from or related to invasive and interventional coronary or peripheral vascular techniques. The journal focuses on material that will be of immediate practical value to physicians providing patient care in the clinical laboratory setting. To accomplish this, the journal publishes Preliminary Reports and Work In Progress articles that complement the traditional Original Studies, Case Reports, and Comprehensive Reviews. Perspective and insight concerning controversial subjects and evolving technologies are provided regularly through Editorial Commentaries furnished by members of the Editorial Board and other experts. Articles are subject to double-blind peer review and complete editorial evaluation prior to any decision regarding acceptability.