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
Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
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.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- 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
- Date Crossref
- 31/07/2024
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Où se fait cette recherche
-
Jr. Hospital of Cook County John H. Stroger pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
University of Florida Department of Internal Medicine pays non établi dans la noticeUniversité ou école supérieure
-
Baton Rouge General Department of Internal Medicine pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Rush University Medical Center Department of Cardiology pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
-
Department of Cardiology John H Stroger Hospital of Cook County Chicago Illinois USA Department of Cardiology pays non établi dans la noticeÉtablissement de santé
John H. Stroger — Jr. Hospital of Cook County, Department of Internal Medicine — University of Florida et Department of Internal Medicine — Baton Rouge General, avec 2 autres affiliations.
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.