» Articles » PMID: 33804450

Risk Scores in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients with Refractory Cardiogenic Shock and Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Overview
Journal J Clin Med
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2021 Apr 3
PMID 33804450
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Although many risk models have been tested in patients implanted by veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), few scores assessed patients' prognosis in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with refractory cardiogenic shock. We aimed at assessing the performance of risk scores, notably the prEdictioN of Cardiogenic shock OUtcome foR AMI patients salvaGed by VA-ECMO (ENCOURAGE) score, for predicting mortality in this particular population. This retrospective observational study included patients admitted to Tours University Hospital for STEMI with cardiogenic shock and requiring hemodynamic support by VA-ECMO. Among the fifty-one patients, the 30-day and 6-month survival rates were 63% and 56% respectively. Thirty days after VA-ECMO therapy, probabilities of mortality were 12, 17, 33, 66, 80% according to the ENCOURAGE score classes 0-12, 13-18, 19-22, 23-27, and ≥28, respectively. The ENCOURAGE score (AUC of the Receiving Operating Characteristic curve = 0.83) was significantly better compared to other risk scores. The hazard ratio for survival at 30 days for each point of the ENCOURAGE score was 1.10 (CI 95% (1.06, 1.15); < 0.001). Decision curve analysis indicated that the ENCOURAGE score had the best clinical usefulness of the tested risk scores and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test suggested an accurate calibration. Our data suggest that the ENCOURAGE score is valid and the most relevant score to predict 30-day mortality after VA-ECMO therapy in STEMI patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. It may help decision-making teams to better select STEMI patients with shock for VA-ECMO therapy.

Citing Articles

Prediction of Hospital Mortality in Patients with ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Evolution of Risk Measurement Techniques and Assessment of Their Effectiveness (Review).

Geltser B, Domzhalov I, Shakhgeldyan K, Kuksin N, Kokarev E, Pak R Sovrem Tekhnologii Med. 2025; 16(4):61-72.

PMID: 39881833 PMC: 11773138. DOI: 10.17691/stm2024.16.4.07.


Epigenomic biomarkers insights in PBMCs for prognostic assessment of ECMO-treated cardiogenic shock patients.

Hsiao Y, Chiang S, Wang C, Chi N, Yu H, Hong T Clin Epigenetics. 2024; 16(1):137.

PMID: 39363385 PMC: 11451087. DOI: 10.1186/s13148-024-01751-6.


Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and microaxial left ventricular assist device in cardiogenic shock: Choosing the right mechanical circulatory support to improve outcomes.

Dagher O, Noly P, Ben Ali W, Bouabdallaoui N, Geicu L, Lamanna R JTCVS Open. 2023; 13:200-213.

PMID: 37063130 PMC: 10091281. DOI: 10.1016/j.xjon.2022.12.011.


Effects and safety of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the treatment of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pang S, Miao G, Zhao X Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022; 9:963002.

PMID: 36237911 PMC: 9552800. DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.963002.


Algorithmic management of postcardiotomy shock with mechanical support: Bring a map, a plan, and your parachute-and know how to use all three.

Stein L, Silvestry S JTCVS Open. 2022; 8:55-65.

PMID: 36004058 PMC: 9390719. DOI: 10.1016/j.xjon.2021.10.055.


References
1.
Klein L, Shaw R, Krone R, Brindis R, Anderson H, Block P . Mortality after emergent percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock secondary to acute myocardial infarction and usefulness of a mortality prediction model. Am J Cardiol. 2005; 96(1):35-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2005.02.040. View

2.
Demondion P, Fournel L, Golmard J, Niculescu M, Pavie A, Leprince P . Predictors of 30-day mortality and outcome in cases of myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock treated by extracorporeal life support. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013; 45(1):47-54. DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezt207. View

3.
Stretch R, Sauer C, Yuh D, Bonde P . National trends in the utilization of short-term mechanical circulatory support: incidence, outcomes, and cost analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64(14):1407-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.07.958. View

4.
Werdan K, Gielen S, Ebelt H, Hochman J . Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J. 2013; 35(3):156-67. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht248. View

5.
Sleeper L, Reynolds H, White H, Webb J, Dzavik V, Hochman J . A severity scoring system for risk assessment of patients with cardiogenic shock: a report from the SHOCK Trial and Registry. Am Heart J. 2010; 160(3):443-50. PMC: 4229030. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.06.024. View