ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: A feared complication of an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is cardiac arrest (CA). Even if return of spontaneous circulation is achieved, cardiogenic shock (CS) is common. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) supports patients with CS and is often used in conjunction with an Impella device (2.5 and CP) to off-load the left ventricle, although limited evidence supports this approach. METHODS: The goal of this study was to determine whether a mortality difference was observed in VA-ECMO alone versus VA-ECMO with Impella (ECPELLA) in patients with CS from AMI and CA. A retrospective chart review of 50 patients with AMI-CS and CA and were supported with VA-ECMO (n = 34) or ECPELLA (n = 16) was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 6-months from VA-ECMO or Impella implantation. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and complication rates between both cohorts and intensive care unit data. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar, except patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were more likely to be in the VA-ECMO group (p = 0.044). The ECPELLA cohort had significantly worse survival after VA-ECMO (SAVE) score (p = 0.032). Six-month all-cause mortality was not significantly different between the cohorts, even when adjusting for SAVE score. Secondary outcomes were notable for an increased rate of minor complications without an increased rate of major complications in the ECPELLA group. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized trials are needed to determine if a mortality difference exists between VA-ECMO and ECPELLA platforms in patients with AMI complicated by CA and CS.
ABSTRACT
Informal caregivers have an essential role for cancer survivors (CS). There may be important clinical and demographic differences between CS with ostomies based on caregiver status. Our aim was to identify items that may lead to future recommendations and interventions for CS with ostomies. This is a secondary analysis of 216 CS with ostomies that were enrolled in a clinical trial. Baseline data collected included demographics, clinical characteristics, and surveys (patient activation, self-efficacy, City of Hope Quality of Life - Ostomy). These factors were compared based on caregiver status using chi-squared analysis and t-tests. Logistic regression was used to examine the factors that affect the likelihood of having a caregiver. Most participants had an identified caregiver (57%; 124/216). There was no difference in age based on caregiver status (mean 64.4 and 62.0 for those with and without a caregiver, respectively). Of those with a caregiver, 66.9% were males, 79.0% were partnered, and 87.1% were white. Those with caregivers had a higher prevalence of diabetes (p < 0.001), heart disease (p = 0.002), and mobility issues (p = 0.002). Survivors with caregivers had both higher incomes (p = 0.012) and levels of education (p = 0.049). The only difference in survey measures was those with a caregiver were more successful at getting help when needed (p = .045). Differences in gender and comorbidities of CS with caregivers demand further investigation. Interventions such as encouraging CS without caregivers to utilize available sources of social support, including other survivors with ostomies, may improve their care and quality of life.
