Scholarlink

<p>The outcomes of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are controversial. We included 1513 patients from six Gulf countries with AMI and CS between 2020 and 2022. Eight hundred twenty patients did not receive MCS, and 693 received MCS, predominantly via an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). Patients receiving MCS were more critically ill, with 94.95% in SCAI shock stages D or E versus 46.95% in the non-MCS group. While unadjusted in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the MCS group (61.0% vs. 32.2%; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), this difference was attributable to baseline risk. In a propensity score-matched analysis of 430 patient pairs, there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality (46.7% vs. 43.7%; <i>p</i> = 0.429 for PCI patients) or long-term survival. Mortality was not related to the time of MCS initiation. Among patients with SCAI Stages D and E, the use of MCS was not associated with improved short- or long-term clinical outcomes. The findings, driven by a predominantly IABP-based MCS strategy, suggest that the higher observed mortality in patients receiving MCS reflects their greater illness severity, and that a survival benefit for this MCS approach was not demonstrated. This underscores the need for patient selection and timing of MCS to optimize outcomes.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Effect of mechanical circulatory support on outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to acute myocardial infarction

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月18日

查看全文
  • Amin Daoulah,
  • Logan Striplin,
  • Omar Kanbr,
  • Nooraldaem Yousif,
  • Prashanth Panduranga,
  • Mubarak Abdulhadi Aldossari,
  • Abdulrahman Arabi,
  • Wael Almahmeed,
  • Ahmed Elmahrouk,
  • Amr A. Arafat,
  • Shaber Seraj,
  • Mohammed Alshehri,
  • Hatem M. Aloui,
  • Alaa Aldossari,
  • Sultan Al Obaikan,
  • Mohammed A. Qutub,
  • Adnan Fathey Hussien,
  • Mohamed Ajaz Ghani,
  • Badr Alzahrani,
  • Taher Hassan,
  • Mokhtar Abdirahman Kahin,
  • Waleed Alharbi,
  • Abdullah Alenezi,
  • Mohammed Al Jarallah,
  • Rajesh Rajan,
  • Ahmed Jamjoom,
  • Youssef Elmahrouk,
  • Wael Qenawi,
  • Alsayed Ali Almarghany,
  • Mohamed Amr Badr,
  • Tarique Shahzad Chachar,
  • Gladsy Selva Livingston,
  • Abeer Said Mohamed Al Rawahi,
  • Gi Eun Kim,
  • Mohamad Safieh,
  • Shahrukh Hashmani,
  • Hassan Khan,
  • Husam A. Noor,
  • Mohamed N. Alama,
  • Ahmed A. Ghonim,
  • Said Al Maashani,
  • Abdulwali Abohasan,
  • Mohammed Balghith,
  • Abeer M. Shawky,
  • Abdulrahman M. Alqahtani,
  • Ibrahim A. M. Abdulhabeeb,
  • Omer A. Elamin,
  • Abdulaziz Ayedh A. Alghamdi,
  • Kralovic Damon,
  • Hanin Alashi,
  • Ziad Dahdouh,
  • Khalid Z. Alshali,
  • Ahmad S. Hersi,
  • Amir Lotfi

摘要

The outcomes of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are controversial. We included 1513 patients from six Gulf countries with AMI and CS between 2020 and 2022. Eight hundred twenty patients did not receive MCS, and 693 received MCS, predominantly via an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). Patients receiving MCS were more critically ill, with 94.95% in SCAI shock stages D or E versus 46.95% in the non-MCS group. While unadjusted in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the MCS group (61.0% vs. 32.2%; p < 0.001), this difference was attributable to baseline risk. In a propensity score-matched analysis of 430 patient pairs, there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality (46.7% vs. 43.7%; p = 0.429 for PCI patients) or long-term survival. Mortality was not related to the time of MCS initiation. Among patients with SCAI Stages D and E, the use of MCS was not associated with improved short- or long-term clinical outcomes. The findings, driven by a predominantly IABP-based MCS strategy, suggest that the higher observed mortality in patients receiving MCS reflects their greater illness severity, and that a survival benefit for this MCS approach was not demonstrated. This underscores the need for patient selection and timing of MCS to optimize outcomes.