Early Identification Of Explicit Treatment Strategies And Outcomes In Cardiogenic Shock

Hadi Beaini,Amit Saha,Sarah Godfrey,Lauren Truby,Nicholas Hendren,Jennifer Thibodeau,Elizabeth Hardin,Faris Araj,Hurst Hall,Mark Drazner,Mary Jane Farr
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2023.10.104
IF: 6.592
2024-01-01
Journal of Cardiac Failure
Abstract:Introduction Patient treatment strategies differ in cardiogenic shock (CS) due to variable patient demographics, comorbidities, center resources, and caregiver support. Given the high in-patient mortality and complex care associated with CS, early identification of treatment strategies may help align multidisciplinary care teams to provide more efficient care. To what extent clearly stated CS treatment strategies are proposed by the care team has not been well reported. In this single-center prospective cohort study, we aim to characterize the early treatment strategies for CS and the associated outcomes. Hypothesis Early identification of CS treatment strategies is associated with decreased length of hospital stay irrespective of treatment strategy and patient characteristics. Methods We enrolled 47 patients in the CSWG prospective registry between November 2022 - March 2023. We defined 3 treatment strategies: urgent consideration for LVAD and/or heart transplant (HT): Advanced Group (AG), Cardiac recovery: Recovery Group (RG), or formal palliation: Palliation Group (PG). The EMR was reviewed to identify language describing treatment strategy on admission days 3 and 7. Continuous variables were described as mean (±SD) and categorical variables as number (%). Results The cohort was predominately male (70%) average age (53 years ±15.5) with admission SCAI shock stages D and E comprising 66% of cases. By hospital day 3, explicit treatment strategies were documented in only 14.9% of the patients compared with 45% on day 7 (AG 21.2%, RG 17%, and PG 6.3%). Notably, 40% of patients did not have a clear treatment strategy by day 7 but 82% had palliative consult and 92% had Advanced Heart Failure service. Patients in the 3 groups had similar age, race, liver and kidney function, SCAI stages, rates of shock team activation (14%) and rates of in-hospital mortality (27%). Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) utilization was 46.8% in the entire cohort, though VA-ECMO was used only in patients in the AG or RG (60.0% [n=6], p=0.003). Thirty-day survival was 56.0% (n=14) and did not differ between the groups. Patients identified at day 7 potentially eligible and in need of LVAD or HT were more likely to receive these therapies during the follow-up period (RR 4.33 [95% CI 1.26-14.85], p=0.013). LVAD-only candidates at day 7 more likely to undergo implantation during admission (RR 11.14 [95% CI 1.36-91.33], p=0.005). Conclusions This exploratory analysis highlights that 40% of patients with CS do not have a defined treatment strategy despite having CS for 7 days. Our findings may support further investigation into an early, structured treatment strategy approach to facilitate patient centered outcomes.
cardiac & cardiovascular systems
What problem does this paper attempt to address?