Application and Comparison of Different Prognostic Scoring Systems in Patients Who Underwent Cardiologist-Managed Percutaneous Cardiopulmonary Support.

Background Temporary mechanical support, including percutaneous cardiopulmonary support (PCPS), is crucial for reversing patients' compromised hemodynamic function. Knowledge about whether cardiologists can directly manage patients receiving PCPS and about the predictive values of different prognostic scores is insufficient. Methods We examined the data and in-hospital mortality of 45 eligible patients receiving cardiologist-managed PCPS from July 2012 to January 2019 in our institute. We compared different prognostic scores [namely Survival After Veno-arterial ECMO (SAVE), modified SAVE, prEdictioN of Cardiogenic shock OUtcome foR acute myocardial infarction patients salvaGed by VA-ECMO (ENCOURAGE), and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores] through area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis. Results The patients' mean age was 64.3 ± 11.3 years, and 71.1% were men. The overall in-hospital survival rate was 35.6%. Compared to survivors, nonsurvivors were more likely to have an ischemic etiology, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and higher lactate levels. Survivors had higher SAVE (-5.9 vs. -11.4) and modified SAVE (4.2 vs. -7.1) scores than nonsurvivors (both p = 0.001), but SOFA (9.7 vs. 10.3) and ENCOURAGE (24.8 vs. 26.8) scores were similar (both p > 0.1). In multivariate models, only modified SAVE score remained statistically significant (hazard ratio: 0.96, 95% confidence interval: 0.93-1.00; p = 0.047). Modified SAVE score showed the best risk discrimination (AUC = 0.78). Conclusions Establishing regular and continual training protocols can enable cardiologists to perform emergency PCPS (without on-site surgery) and daily care for patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. The modified SAVE score facilitates risk stratification and future decision-making processes.