Search

Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

The use of temporary mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock has increased dramatically despite a lack of randomized controlled trials or evidence guiding clinical decision-making. Recommendations from professional societies on temporary mechanical circulatory support escalation and de-escalation are limited. This scientific statement provides pragmatic suggestions on temporary mechanical circulatory support device selection, escalation, and weaning strategies in patients with common cardiogenic shock causes such as acute decompensated heart failure and acute myocardial infarction. The goal of this scientific statement is to serve as a resource for clinicians making temporary mechanical circulatory support management decisions and to propose standardized approaches for their use until more robust randomized clinical data are available.

One-year outcomes of Ticagrelor Antiplatelet Therapy to Reduce Graft Events and Thrombosis (TARGET), a randomized double-blinded clinical trial comparing post-coronary artery bypass surgery antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor versus aspirin are published in this issue of the Journal. Although the authors did not detect statistically significant differences in their primary outcome (saphenous vein graft patency at 1 year) and major adverse cardiovascular events, their findings must be interpreted with caution given important limitations in the design and execution of the trial., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Over the past few decades, advances in pharmacological, catheter-based, and surgical reperfusion have improved outcomes for patients with acute myocardial infarctions. However, patients with large infarcts or those who do not receive timely revascularization remain at risk for mechanical complications of acute myocardial infarction. The most commonly encountered mechanical complications are acute mitral regurgitation secondary to papillary muscle rupture, ventricular septal defect, pseudoaneurysm, and free wall rupture; each complication is associated with a significant risk of morbidity, mortality, and hospital resource utilization. The care for patients with mechanical complications is complex and requires a multidisciplinary collaboration for prompt recognition, diagnosis, hemodynamic stabilization, and decision support to assist patients and families in the selection of definitive therapies or palliation. However, because of the relatively small number of high-quality studies that exist to guide clinical practice, there is significant variability in care that mainly depends on local expertise and available resources.

Patients requiring mechanical circulatory support (MCS) constitute a heterogeneous group whose needs have guided the development of a broad range of MCS devices. Appropriate patient and device selection are important for maximizing the potential benefit of these therapies. Currently available devices can be deployed percutaneously or surgically implanted. They can also be configured for left, right, or biventricular support and remain in place for hours to years, offering varying levels of flow. In the critical care setting, patients with the highest acuity have the worst outcomes when receiving an implantable long-term ventricular assist device (VAD); therefore, shorter-term devices should be considered for stabilization and optimization prior to implantation of a long-term device. In this focused review for the critical care clinician, we discuss important considerations for identifying VAD candidates, identifying the range of devices available to support them, bridging strategies that may improve outcomes for patients who are critically ill, and identifying areas of ongoing research., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)