EFFECT OF PULMONARY ARTERY CATHETERIZATION IN PATIENTS WITH NONISCHEMIC CARDIOGENIC SHOCK: A NATIONWIDE ANALYSIS.

Autor:	Diaz-Arocutipa C; Unidad de Revisiones Sistemáticas y Meta-análisis (URSIGET), Vicerrectorado de Investigación, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Lima, Perú., Moreno G, Gil DG; Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, España., Nieto S; Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, España., Romo M; Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, España., Vicent L; Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, España.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Shock (Augusta, Ga.) [Shock] 2024 Aug 01; Vol. 62 (2), pp. 186-192. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Apr 09.
DOI:	10.1097/SHK.0000000000002371
Abstrakt:	Abstract: Background: Pulmonary artery catheterization (PAC) has been widely used in critically ill patients, yielding mixed results. Prior studies on cardiogenic shock (CS) predominantly included patients with acute myocardial infarction. This study aims to examine the effect of PAC use in patients with nonischemic CS. Methods: This retrospective cohort study employed data from the National Inpatient Sample database, including weighted hospitalizations of adult patients with nonischemic CS during 2017 to 2019. In-hospital outcomes were compared between groups using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results: A total of 303,970 patients with nonischemic CS were included, of whom 17.5% received a PAC during their hospitalization. The median age was 67 years (interquartile range: 57-77) and 61% were male. After inverse probability of treatment weighting, patients in the PAC group had significantly lower in-hospital mortality (24.8% vs. 35.3%, P < 0.001), renal replacement therapy (10.7% vs. 12.4%, P = 0.002), in-hospital cardiac arrest (7.1% vs. 9.6%, P < 0.001), and mechanical ventilation (44.6% vs. 50.4%, P < 0.001) compared to non-PAC group. In contrast, the PAC group had higher use of intra-aortic balloon pump (15.4% vs. 3.4%, P < 0.001), percutaneous ventricular assist devices (12.6% vs. 2.6%, P < 0.001), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (3.9% vs. 2.5%, P < 0.001), and heart transplantation (2.1% vs. 0.4%, P < 0.001). Conclusion: In the real-world setting, invasive hemodynamic monitoring with PAC in patients with nonischemic CS is associated with survival benefits and a reduction in adverse events, including reduced need for renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilation and risk of in-hospital cardiac arrest. Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest. (Copyright © 2024 by the Shock Society.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu