Search

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock is a morbid complication of heart disease that claims the lives of more than 1 in 3 patients presenting with this syndrome. Supporting a unique collaboration across clinical specialties, federal regulators, payors, and industry, the American Heart Association volunteers and staff have launched a quality improvement registry to better understand the clinical manifestations of shock phenotypes, and to benchmark the management patterns, and outcomes of patients presenting with cardiogenic shock to hospitals across the United States. METHODS: Participating hospitals will enroll consecutive hospitalized patients with cardiogenic shock, regardless of etiology or severity. Data are collected through individual reviews of medical records of sequential adult patients with cardiogenic shock. The electronic case record form was collaboratively designed with a core minimum data structure and aligned with Shock Academic Research Consortium definitions. This registry will allow participating health systems to evaluate patientlevel data including diagnostic approaches, therapeutics, use of advanced monitoring and circulatory support, processes of care, complications, and in-hospital survival. Participating sites can leverage these data for onsite monitoring of outcomes and benchmarking versus other institutions. The registry was concomitantly designed to provide a high-quality longitudinal research infrastructure for pragmatic randomized trials as well as translational, clinical, and implementation research. An aggregate deidentified data set will be made available to the research community on the American Heart Association's Precision Medicine Platform. On March 31, 2022, the American Heart Association Cardiogenic Shock Registry received its first clinical records. At the time of this submission, 100 centers are participating. CONCLUSIONS: The American Heart Association Cardiogenic Shock Registry will serve as a resource using consistent data structure and definitions for the medical and research community to accelerate scientific advancement through shared learning and research resulting in improved quality of care and outcomes of shock patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The function of the right ventricle (RV) is to drive the forward flow of blood to the pulmonary system for oxygenation before returning to the left ventricle. Due to the thin myocardium of the RV, its function is easily affected by decreased preload, contractile motion abnormalities, or increased afterload. While various etiologies can lead to changes in RV structure and function, sudden changes in RV afterload can cause acute RV failure which is associated with high mortality. Early detection and diagnosis of RV failure is imperative for guiding initial medical management. Echocardiographic findings of reduced tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (<1.7) and RV wall motion (RV S′ <10 cm/s) are quantitatively supportive of RV systolic dysfunction. Medical management commonly involves utilizing diuretics or fluids to optimize RV preload, while correcting the underlying insult to RV function. When medical management alone is insufficient, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may be necessary. However, the utility of MCS for isolated RV failure remains poorly understood. This review outlines the differences in flow rates, effects on hemodynamics, and advantages/disadvantages of MCS devices such as intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella, centrifugal-flow right ventricular assist devices, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and includes a detailed review of the latest clinical trials and studies analyzing the effects of MCS devices in acute RV failure. • RV failure is difficult to diagnose. Utilization of laboratory values, imaging modalities, and various hemodynamic variables can aid in diagnosis. • Physicians should have a high index of suspicion and employ early mechanical support in the management of cardiogenic shock. • Multiple mechanical support devices are available and should be utilized in both isolated RV failure and biventricular failure when appropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The incidence of acute respiratory insufficiency has continued to increase among patients admitted to modern-day cardiovascular intensive care units. Positive pressure ventilation (PPV) remains the mainstay of treatment for these patients. Alterations in intrathoracic pressure during PPV has distinct effects on both the right and left ventricles, affecting cardiovascular performance. Lung-protective ventilation (LPV) minimizes the risk of further lung injury through ventilator-induced lung injury and, hence, an understanding of LPV and its cardiopulmonary interactions is beneficial for cardiologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), myocardial salvage is often suboptimal, resulting in large infarct size and increased rates of heart failure and mortality. Unloading of the left ventricle (LV) before primary PCI may reduce infarct size and improve prognosis. STEMI-DTU (NCT03947619) is a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial designed to compare mechanical LV unloading with the Impella CP device for 30 minutes prior to primary PCI to primary PCI alone without LV unloading. The trial aims to enroll approximately 668 subjects, with a potential sample size adaptation, with anterior STEMI with a primary end point of infarct size as a percent of LV mass evaluated by cardiac magnetic resonance at 3-5 days after PCI. The key secondary efficacy end point is a hierarchical composite of the 1-year rates of cardiovascular mortality, cardiogenic shock ≥24 hours after PCI, use of a surgical left ventricular assist device or heart transplant, heart failure, intra-cardiac defibrillator or chronic resynchronization therapy placement, and infarct size at 3 to 5 days post-PCI. The key secondary safety end point is Impella CP-related major bleeding or major vascular complications within 30 days. Clinical follow-up is planned for 5 years. STEMI-DTU is a large-scale, prospective, randomized trial evaluating whether mechanical unloading of the LV by the Impella CP prior to primary PCI reduces infarct size and improves prognosis in patients with STEMI compared to primary PCI alone without LV unloading. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), myocardial salvage is often suboptimal, resulting in large infarct size and increased rates of heart failure and mortality. Unloading of the left ventricle (LV) before primary PCI may reduce infarct size and improve prognosis.Study Design and Objectives: STEMI-DTU (NCT03947619) is a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial designed to compare mechanical LV unloading with the Impella CP device for 30 minutes prior to primary PCI to primary PCI alone without LV unloading. The trial aims to enroll approximately 668 subjects, with a potential sample size adaptation, with anterior STEMI with a primary end point of infarct size as a percent of LV mass evaluated by cardiac magnetic resonance at 3-5 days after PCI. The key secondary efficacy end point is a hierarchical composite of the 1-year rates of cardiovascular mortality, cardiogenic shock ≥24 hours after PCI, use of a surgical left ventricular assist device or heart transplant, heart failure, intra-cardiac defibrillator or chronic resynchronization therapy placement, and infarct size at 3 to 5 days post-PCI. The key secondary safety end point is Impella CP-related major bleeding or major vascular complications within 30 days. Clinical follow-up is planned for 5 years.Conclusions: STEMI-DTU is a large-scale, prospective, randomized trial evaluating whether mechanical unloading of the LV by the Impella CP prior to primary PCI reduces infarct size and improves prognosis in patients with STEMI compared to primary PCI alone without LV unloading. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is widely implanted as temporary mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock (CS). However, its use is declining following the results of the IABP-SHOCK II trial, which failed to show a clinical benefit of the IABP in acute coronary syndrome (ACS)-related CS. Acute-on-chronic heart failure has become an increasingly recognized, distinct cause of CS (HF-CS). The pathophysiology of HF-CS differs from that of ACS-CS because it typically represents the progression from a state of congestion (with relatively preserved cardiac output) to a low-output state with hypoperfusion. The IABP is a volume-displacement pump that promotes forward flow from a high-capacitance reservoir to low-capacitance vessels, improving peripheral perfusion and decreasing left ventricular afterload in the setting of high filling pressures. The IABP can improve ventricular-vascular coupling and, therefore, myocardial energetics. Additionally, many patients with HF-CS are candidates for cardiac replacement therapies (left ventricular assist device or heart transplantation) and, therefore, may benefit from a bridge strategy that stabilizes the hemodynamics and end-organ function in preparation for more durable therapies. Notably, the new United Network for Organ Sharing donor heart allocation system has recently prioritized patients on IABP support. This review describes the role of IABP in the treatment of HF-CS. It also briefly discusses new strategies for vascular access as well as fully implantable versions for longer duration of support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Heart transplantation (HTx) candidates supported by Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) or intraaortic balloon pump (IABP), who demonstrate evidence of cardiogenic shock, may qualify for waitlist status 2 without exception under the new donor heart allocation system. However limited data comparing Impella versus IABP as a bridge to HTx exist. The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried for adults listed and/or transplanted between January 2014 and February 2020. Temporal trends regarding Impella and IABP use were analyzed using the Royston trend test and χ2 test. Waitlist mortality was examined using Fine-Gray competing risks analysis. Post-HTx 180-day survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. Impella use increased from 0.2% in 2014 to 2.6% in 2020 (P <.01) and from 0.4% to 2.2% (P <.01) under the new allocation system. IABP use increased from 4.9% in 2014 to 27.6% in 2020 (P <.01) and from 6.7% to 26.6% (P <.01) under the new allocation system. Post-HTx survival was similar between groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.38-1.78) despite more preoperative ventilation (3.6% vs 1.1%, P =.01) and higher model for end-stage liver disease excluding international normalized ratio scores (12.4 vs 9.5, P <.01) among Impella-supported recipients. Under the new system Impella-supported candidates were at higher risk of waitlist delisting compared with IABP-supported candidates (subhazard ratio, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.19-4.92). Post-HTx survival is comparable between Impella-supported and IABP-supported recipients despite worse preoperative profiles among Impella-supported recipients. Higher risk of waitlist delisting among Impella-supported candidates under the new allocation system requires close attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Contemporary practices for hemodynamically supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention have evolved over the last decade. This study sought to compare outcomes of the prospective, multicenter, PROTECT III study to historic patients treated with Impella in the PROTECT II randomized controlled trial.Methods: Of 1,134 patients enrolled in PROTECT III from March 2017 to March 2020, 504 were "PROTECT II-like" (met eligibility for PROTECT II randomized controlled trial) and are referred to as PROTECT III for comparative analysis. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), comprising all-cause mortality, stroke/transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization, were compared at hospital discharge and 90 days.Results: Compared with PROTECT II (N = 216), PROTECT III patients were less often Caucasian (77.1% vs 83.8%, P = .045), with less prior CABG (13.7% vs 39.4%; P < .001) and prior myocardial infarction (40.7% vs 69.3%; P < .001). More PROTECT III patients underwent rotational atherectomy (37.1% vs 14.8%, P < .001) and duration of support was longer (median 1.6 vs 1.3 hours; p<0.001), with greater improvement achieved in myocardial ischemia jeopardy scores (7.0±2.4 vs 4.4±2.9; P < .001) and SYNTAX scores (21.4±10.8 vs 15.7±9.5; P < .001). In-hospital bleeding requiring transfusion was significantly lower in PROTECT III (1.8% vs 9.3%; P < .001), as was procedural hypotension (2.2% vs 10.1%; P < .001) and cardiopulmonary resuscitation or ventricular arrhythmia (1.6% vs 6.9%; P < .001). At 90 days, MACCE was 15.1% and 21.9% in PROTECT III and PROTECT II, respectively (p=0.037). Following propensity score matching, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed improved 90-day MACCE rates in PROTECT III (10.4% vs 16.9%, P = .048).Conclusions: The PROTECT III study demonstrates improved completeness of revascularization, less bleeding, and improved 90-day clinical outcomes compared to PROTECT II for Impella-supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention among patients with severely depressed LVEF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) is a critical syndrome with a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Current management consists of coronary revascularisation, vasoactive drugs, and circulatory and ventilatory support, which are tailored to patients mainly on the basis of clinicians' experience rather than evidence-based recommendations. For many therapeutic interventions in AMICS, randomised clinical trials have not shown a meaningful survival benefit, and a disproportionately high rate of neutral and negative results has been reported. In this context, an accurate definition of the AMICS syndrome for appropriate patient selection and optimisation of study design are warranted to achieve meaningful results and pave the way for new, evidence-based therapeutic options. In this Position Paper, we provide a statement of priorities and recommendations agreed by a multidisciplinary group of experts at the Critical Care Clinical Trialists Workshop in February, 2020, for the optimisation and harmonisation of clinical trials in AMICS. Implementation of proposed criteria to define the AMICS population—moving beyond a cardio-centric definition to that of a systemic disease—and steps to improve the design of clinical trials could lead to improved outcomes for patients with this life-threatening syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Elevated blood lactate levels are strongly associated with mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock. Recent evidence suggests that the degree and rate at which blood lactate levels decrease after the initiation of treatment may be equally important in patient prognosis. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the usefulness of lactate clearance as a prognostic factor in cardiogenic shock.Methods and Results: We performed searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier EMBASE, EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science to identify studies comparing lactate clearance between survivors and nonsurvivors at one or more timepoints. Both prospective and retrospective studies were eligible for inclusion. Two study investigators independently screened, extracted data, and assessed the quality of all included studies. Twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis. The median lactate clearance at 6-8 hours was 21.9% (interquartile range [IQR] 14.6%-42.1%) in survivors and 0.6% (IQR -3.7% to 14.6%) in nonsurvivors. At 24 hours, the median lactate clearance was 60.7% (IQR 58.1%-76.3%) and 40.3% (IQR 30.2%-55.8%) in survivors and nonsurvivors, respectively. Accordingly, the pooled mean difference in lactate clearance between survivors and nonsurvivors at 6-8 hours was 17.3% (95% CI 11.6%-23.1%, P < .001) at 6-8 hours and 27.9% (95% CI 14.1%-41.7%, P < .001) at 24 hours.Conclusions: Survivors had significantly greater lactate clearance at 6-8 hours and at 24 hours compared with nonsurvivors, suggesting that lactate clearance is an important prognostic marker in cardiogenic shock. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite increasing prevalence in critical care units, cardiogenic shock related to HF (HF-CS) is incompletely understood and distinct from acute myocardial infarction related CS. This review highlights the pathophysiology, evaluation, and contemporary management of HF-CS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a condition associated with high mortality rates in which prognostication is uncertain for a variety of reasons, including its myriad causes, its rapidly evolving clinical course and the plethora of established and emerging therapies for the condition. A number of validated risk scores are available for CS prognostication; however, many of these are tedious to use, are designed for application in a variety of populations and fail to incorporate contemporary hemodynamic parameters and contemporary mechanical circulatory support interventions that can affect outcomes. It is important to separate patients with CS who may recover with conservative pharmacological therapies from those in who may require advanced therapies to survive; it is equally important to identify quickly those who will succumb despite any therapy. An ideal risk-prediction model would balance incorporation of key hemodynamic parameters while still allowing dynamic use in multiple scenarios, from aiding with early decision making to device weaning. Herein, we discuss currently available CS risk scores, perform a detailed analysis of the variables in each of these scores that are most predictive of CS outcomes and explore a framework for the development of novel risk scores that consider emerging therapies and paradigms for this challenging clinical entity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sympathetically mediated redistribution of blood from the unstressed venous reservoir to the hemodynamically active stressed compartment is thought to contribute to congestion in cardiogenic shock (CS). We used a novel computational method to estimate stressed blood volume (SBV) in CS and assess its relationship with clinical outcomes.Methods and Results: Hemodynamic parameters including estimated SBV (eSBV) were compared among patients from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry with a complete set of hemodynamic data. eSBV was compared across shock etiologies (acute myocardial infarction and CS (AMI-CS) vs heart failure with CS (HF-CS), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions stage, and between survivors and nonsurvivors. Among 528 patients with patients analyzed, the mean eSBV was 2423 mL/70 kg and increased with increasing Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions stage (B, 2029 mL/70 kg; C, 2305 mL/70 kg; D, 2496 mL/70 kg; E, 2707 mL/70 kg; P < .001). The eSBV was significantly greater among patients with HF-CS who died compared with survivors (2733 vs 2357 mL/70 kg; P < .001), whereas no significant difference was observed between outcome groups in AMI-CS (2501 mL/70 kg vs 2384 mL/70 kg; P = .19).Conclusions: eSBV is a novel integrated index of congestion which correlates with shock severity. eSBV was higher in patients with HF-CS who died; no difference was observed in patients with AMI-CS, suggesting that congestion may play a more significant role in the deterioration of patients with HF-CS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare clinical features and outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) treated in the early experience with Impella percutaneous ventricular assist device and patients treated recently.Background: Since pre-market approval (PMA) of Impella device as treatment for AMICS, use of the device has grown considerably.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 649 AMICS patients treated with perioperative Impella, with 291 patients treated from 2008 to 2014 comprising the early experience cohort and 358 patients treated from 2017 to 2019 comprising the recent experience cohort. The primary end point was risk adjusted in-hospital mortality.Results: Mean age and gender distribution of patients was similar in the two cohorts. The recent cohort had more invasive hemodynamic monitoring (64% vs 46%; P < .001) and less use of an intra-aortic balloon pump prior to Impella (15% vs 41%; P < .001). Recently treated patients were significantly more likely to receive Impella support prior to PCI (58% vs 44%; P = .005). In-hospital mortality was lower in the recent cohort (48% vs 56%; P = .043). This difference was however no longer significant after risk adjustment (adjusted OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59-1.34, P = .59). Rates of acute kidney injury, major bleeding, and vascular complications requiring surgery were also significantly lower in the recent cohort.Conclusions: Use of Impella for AMICS during recent years is associated with lower unadjusted in-hospital mortality, which may reflect better patient selection, earlier device implantation, and improved management algorithms. In-depth understanding of these factors may inform the development of future treatment protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: There has been increasing utilization of short-term mechanical circulatory support devices for a variety of clinical indications. Many patients have suboptimal iliofemoral access options or reasons why early mobilization is desirable. Axillary artery access is an option for these patients, but little is known about the utility of this approach to facilitate shortterm use for circulatory support with microaxial pump devices. METHODS: The Axillary Access Registry to Monitor Safety (ARMS) was a prospective, observational multicenter registry to study the feasibility and acute safety of mechanical circulatory support via percutaneous upper-extremity access. RESULTS: One hundred and two patients were collected from 10 participating centers. Successful device implantation was 98% (100 of 102). Devices were implanted for a median of 2 days (interquartile range, 0-5 days; range, 0-35 days). Procedural complications included 10 bleeding events and 1 stroke. There were 3 patients with brachial plexus-related symptoms all consisting of C8 tingling and all arising after multiple days of support. Postprocedural access site hematoma or bleeding was noted in 9 patients. Device explantation utilized closure devices alone in 61%, stent grafts in 17%, balloon tamponade facilitated closure in 15%, and planned surgical explant in 5%. Duration of support appeared to be independently associated with a 1.1% increased odds of vascular complication per day ([95% CI, 0.0%-2.3%] P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous axillary access for use with microaxial support pumps appears feasible with acceptable rates of bleeding despite early experience. Larger studies are necessary to confirm the pilot data presented here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite early reperfusion and coordinated systems of care, cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the number one cause of morbidity and in-hospital mortality following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). CS is a complex clinical syndrome that begins with hemodynamic instability and can progress to multi-organ failure and profound hemo-metabolic compromise. To improve outcomes, a clear understanding of the treatment objectives in CS and developing time-sensitive management strategies aimed at stabilizing hemodynamics and restoring myocardial perfusion are critical. Left ventricular (LV) load has been identified as an independent predictor of heart failure and mortality following AMI. Decades of preclinical and clinical research have identified several effective LV unloading strategies. Recent initiatives from single and multi-center registries and more recently the Door to Unload (DTU)-STEMI pilot study have provided valuable insight to developing a standardized treatment approach to AMI, based on early invasive hemodynamics and tailored circulatory support to unload the LV. To follow is a review of the pathophysiology and prevalence of shock, limitations of current therapies, and the pre-clinical and translational basis for incorporating LV unloading into contemporary AMI and shock care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]