JAMDA jo u rn a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . j a m d a . c o m

No abstract

Background: Mortality from cardiogenic shock remains high and early recognition and risk stratification are mandatory for optimal patient allocation and to guide treatment strategy. The CardShock and the Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock (IABP-SHOCK II) risk scores have shown good results in predicting short-term mortality in cardiogenic shock. However, to date, they have not been compared in a large cohort of ischaemic and non-ischaemic real-world cardiogenic shock patients. Methods: The Red-Shock is a multicentre cohort of non-selected cardiogenic shock patients. We calculated the CardShock and IABP-SHOCK II risk scores in each patient and assessed discrimination and calibration. Results: We included 696 patients. The main cause of cardiogenic shock was acute coronary syndrome, occurring in 62% of the patients. Compared with acute coronary syndrome patients, non-acute coronary syndrome patients were younger and had a lower proportion of risk factors but higher rates of renal insufficiency; intra-aortic balloon pump was also less frequently used (31% vs 56%). In contrast, non-acute coronary syndrome patients were more often treated with mechanical circulatory support devices (11% vs 3%, p<0.001 for both). Both risk scores were good predictors of in-hospital mortality in acute coronary syndrome patients and had similar areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (area under the curve: 0.742 for the CardShock vs 0.752 for IABP-SHOCK II, p=0.65). Their discrimination performance was only modest when applied to non-acute coronary syndrome patients (0.648 vs 0.619, respectively, p=0.31). Calibration was acceptable for both scores (Hosmer-Lemeshow p=0.22 for the CardShock and 0.68 for IABP-SHOCK II). Conclusions: In our cohort, both the CardShock and the IABP-SHOCK II risk scores were good predictors of in-hospital mortality in acute coronary syndrome-related cardiogenic shock.

Introduction: Many severe COVID-19 patients require respiratory support and monitoring. An intermediate respiratory care unit (IMCU) may be a valuable element for optimizing patient care and limited health-care resources management. We aim to assess the clinical outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients admitted to an IMCU.Methods: Observational, retrospective study including patients admitted to the IMCU due to COVID-19 pneumonia during the months of March and April 2020. Patients were stratified based on their requirement of transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) and on survival status at the end of follow-up. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards method was used to assess risk factors associated with mortality.Results: A total of 253 patients were included. Of them, 68% were male and median age was 65 years (IQR 18 years). Ninety-two patients (36.4%) required ICU transfer. Patients transferred to the ICU had a higher mortality rate (44.6 vs. 24.2%; p &lt; 0.001). Multivariable proportional hazards model showed that age ≥65 years (HR 4.14; 95%CI 2.31–7.42; p &lt; 0.001); chronic respiratory conditions (HR 2.34; 95%CI 1.38–3.99; p = 0.002) and chronic kidney disease (HR 2.96; 95%CI 1.61–5.43; p &lt; 0.001) were independently associated with mortality. High-dose systemic corticosteroids followed by progressive dose tapering showed a lower risk of death (HR 0.15; 95%CI 0.06–0.40; p &lt; 0.001).Conclusions: IMCU may be a useful tool for the multidisciplinary management of severe COVID-19 patients requiring respiratory support and non-invasive monitoring, therefore reducing ICU burden. Older age and chronic respiratory or renal conditions are associated with worse clinical outcomes, while treatment with systemic corticosteroids may have a protective effect on mortality.