These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Right Ventricular Dysfunction Is Common and Identifies Patients at Risk of Dying in Cardiogenic Shock.
    Author: Jain P, Thayer KL, Abraham J, Everett KD, Pahuja M, Whitehead EH, Schwartz BP, Lala A, Sinha SS, Kanwar MK, Garan AR, Hernandez-Monfort JA, Mahr C, Vorovich E, Wencker D, McCabe JM, Jones T, Goud M, Baca P, Harwani N, Burkhoff D, Kapur NK.
    Journal: J Card Fail; 2021 Oct; 27(10):1061-1072. PubMed ID: 34625126.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Understanding the prognostic impact of right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) in cardiogenic shock (CS) is a key step toward rational diagnostic and treatment algorithms and improved outcomes. Using a large multicenter registry, we assessed (1) the association between hemodynamic markers of RVD and in-hospital mortality, (2) the predictive value of invasive hemodynamic assessment incorporating RV evaluation, and (3) the impact of RVD severity on survival in CS. METHODS AND RESULTS: Inpatients with CS owing to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or heart failure (HF) between 2016 and 2019 were included. RV parameters (right atrial pressure, right atrial/pulmonary capillary wedge pressure [RA/PCWP], pulmonary artery pulsatility index [PAPI], and right ventricular stroke work index [RVSWI]) were assessed between survivors and nonsurvivors, and between etiology and SCAI stage subcohorts. Multivariable logistic regression analysis determined hemodynamic predictors of in-hospital mortality; the resulting models were compared with SCAI staging alone. Nonsurvivors had a significantly higher right atrial pressure and RA/PCWP and lower PAPI and RVSWI than survivors, consistent with more severe RVD. Compared with AMI, patients with HF had a significantly lower RA/PCWP (0.58 vs 0.66, P = .001) and a higher PAPI (2.71 vs 1.78, P < .001) and RVSWI (5.70 g-m/m2 vs 4.66 g-m/m2, P < .001), reflecting relatively preserved RV function. Paradoxically, multiple RVD parameters (PAPI, RVSWI) were associated with mortality in the HF but not the AMI cohort. RVD was more severe with advanced SCAI stage, although its prognostic value was progressively diluted in stages D and E. Multivariable modelling incorporating the RA/PCWP improved the predictive value of SCAI staging (area under the curve [AUC] 0.78 vs 0.73, P < .001), largely driven by patients with HF (AUC 0.82 vs 0.71, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: RVD is associated with poor outcomes in CS, with key differences across etiology and shock severity. Further studies are needed to assess the usefulness of RVD assessment in guiding therapy.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]