ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2019
Mechanical circulatory support for refractory cardiogenic shock post-acute myocardial infarction-a decade of lessons.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of VA-ECMO with and without Left Centricular (LV) Decompression Using Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping (IABP) versus Other LV Decompression Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020Pooled it
- Temporary surgical ventricular assist device for treatment of acute myocardial infarction and refractory cardiogenic shock in the percutaneous device era.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2021Article
- Perioperative management of patients with undergoing mechanical circulatory support.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are 0.9 catheterization labs per 100,000 inhabitants in Scotland for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), which are much less accessible to patients in remote and rural areas. An uncommon but sinister sequalae following AMI is cardiogenic shock (CS) that could be refractory to inotropic support. CS complicates 5-15% of AMIs occurring in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMIs). Outcomes of CS are poor with mortalities of up to 90% reported in the literature in the absence of experienced care. We report our experience as the tertiary referral centre in Scotland for MCS and heart transplantation over 8 years.
methodsA retrospective review of prospectively collected data was undertaken on all patients registered to the MCS service. The database was interrogated for patient demographics, type of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and duration of MCS support, PCI-outcomes and survival to 30 days. A time-to-event analysis was performed using patient survival as the primary outcome measure.
resultsTwenty-three patients (16 male, 7 females) were included. The median age of the patients as 50 years (range, 45-56 years). VA-ECMO was the initial MCS of choice in 17 (73.9%) patients with BIVAD for 4 (17.4%) patients and LVAD for 2 (8.7%) patients. Thirty-day mortality was 21.8% in this cohort, however survival to discharge was 52.2%. Eleven (47.8%) patients recovered without the need for any further support, however only 9 (81.8%) patients in this subgroup survived to discharge. Three (13.0%) patients received a durable LVAD. In this subgroup, one patient was transplanted whereas two patients died due to complications while on support. The median length of in-hospital MCS support was 4 days. Median in-hospital stay was 27 days. Long-term follow up of up to 8 years demonstrates a high mortality beyond 30-day up to the first 6-month post MCS support.
conclusionsMCS usage in these patients carries a high mortality in the early post-implantation period. However, there is a significant benefit to patients who survive the initial bridging period to recovery or destination therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.