Search

Development of ventricular failure and pulmonary edema is associated with a worse prognosis in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We aimed to evaluate the prognostic ability of a novel classification combining lung ultrasound (LUS) and left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) velocity time integral (VTI) in patients with STEMI. LUS and LVOT-VTI were performed within 24 h of admission in STEMI patients. A LUS combined with LVOT-VTI (LUV) classification was developed based on LUS with < or ≥ 3 positive zone scans, combined with LVOT-VTI > or ≤ 14. Patients were classified as A (< 3zones/ > 14 cm VTI), B (≥ 3zones/ > 14 cm VTI), C (< 3zones/ ≤ 14 cm VTI) and D (≥ 3zones/ ≤ 14 cm VTI). Primary outcome was occurrence of in-hospital mortality. Development of cardiogenic shock (CS) within 24 h was also assessed. A total of 308 patients were included. Overall in-hospital mortality was 8.8%, while mortality for LUV A, B, C, and D was 0%, 3%, 12%, and 45%, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) for predicting in-hospital mortality was 0.915. Moreover, after exclusion of patients admitted in Killip IV, at each increasing degree of LUV, a higher proportion of patients developed CS within 24 h: LUV A = 0.0%, LUV B 5%, LUV C = 12.5% and LUV D = 30.8% (p < 0.0001). The AUC for predicting CS was 0.908 (p < 0.001). In a cohort of STEMI patients, LUV provided to be an excellent method for prediction of in-hospital mortality and development of CS. LUV classification is a fast, non-invasive and very user-friendly ultrasonographic evaluation method to stratify the risk of mortality and CS., Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Ethical approval: This prospective cohort was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre (2015-0557) and complied with National Health Council Resolution 466/12., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Società Italiana di Medicina Interna (SIMI).)

Background: Patients experiencing loss of pulse pressure (LOPP) during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI) are transiently dependent on mechanical circulatory support devices. We sought to define the frequency and clinic outcomes of patients who experience LOPP during HR-PCI., Methods and Results: Patients enrolled in the PROTECT III study and had automated Impella controller logs capturing real-time hemodynamics were included in this analysis. A LOPP event was defined as a mean pulse pressure on Impella of <20 mm Hg for ≥5 seconds during PCI. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were then compared between those with and without LOPP. Logistic regression identified clinical and hemodynamic predictors of LOPP. We included 302 patients, of whom 148 patients (49%) experienced LOPP. Age, sex, and comorbidities were similar in patients with and without LOPP. Mean baseline systolic blood pressure (118.6 mm Hg vs 129.8 mm Hg; P < .001) and mean arterial pressure (86.9 mm Hg vs 91.6 mm Hg; P = .011) were lower in patients with LOPP, whereas heart rate (78 bpm vs 73 bpm; P = .012) was higher. Anatomical complexity was similar between groups. Patients with LOPP were more likely to experience major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (23.5% vs 8.8%; P = .002), acute kidney injury (10.1% vs 2.6%; P = .030), and death (20.2% vs 7.9%; P = .008) within 90 days. A low baseline systolic blood pressure and cardiomyopathy were the strongest predictors of LOPP (P = .003 and P = .001, respectively)., Conclusions: LOPP on Impella during HR-PCI was common and occurred more frequently in patients with cardiomyopathy and a low systolic blood pressure. LOPP was strongly associated with higher 90-day major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, acute kidney injury, and mortality. Condensed Abstract We sought to define the frequency and clinic outcomes of patients who experience LOPP during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI). We included 302 patients, of whom 148 (49%) experienced LOPP. Patients with LOPP were more likely to experience major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (23.5% vs 8.8%; P = .002), acute kidney injury (10.1% vs 2.6%; P = .030), and death (20.2% vs 7.9%; P = .008) within 90 days. A low baseline systolic blood pressure and cardiomyopathy were the strongest predictors of LOPP (P = .003 and P = .001, respectively)., Competing Interests: Disclosures Mir B. Basir is a consultant for Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Chiesi, Saranas and Zoll. Dana Bentley is an employee of Abiomed. Alexander G. Truesdell is a consultant/speaker for Abiomed and a speaker for Shockwave. Katherine Kunkel is a consultant and speaker for Abiomed and Shockwave Medical, speaker for Cardiovascular Systems Incorporated, and consultant for Medtronic and Bristol Myers Squibb/Janssen. Alejandro Lemor discloses a speaker honorarium from Abiomed. Michael Megaly has no disclosures. Mohammad Alqarqaz discloses an institutional research grant from Abiomed. Khaldoon Alaswad is a consultant and speaker for BSC, Teleflex, and CSI. Akshay Khandewal has no disclosures. Elise Jortberg is an employee of Abiomed. Sanjog Kalra is a consultant for Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Philips Healthcare, Cardiovascular Systems, and Translumina Therapeutics; on the advisory board for Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Philips Healthcare, Medtronic, and Avinger; on the speaker's bureau for Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Philips Healthcare, Cardiovascular Systems, Translumina Therapeutics, and Medtronic; a sponsored research participant for Abiomed, Boston Scientific, and Philips Healthcare; and a proctor for Boston Scientific, Philips Healthcare, and Translumina Therapeutics. Amir Kaki is a speaker/proctor for Abiomed, Abbott, Boston Scientific, CSI, Medtronic, and Terumo. Daniel Burkhoff is on the Steering Committee for RECOVER IV sponsored by Abiomed (institutional compensation). Jeffrey W. Moses received honoraria or consulting fees from Abiomed, Philips, and Boston Scientific. Duane S. Pinto received honoraria or consulting fees from Abiomed, Abbott Vascular, Haemonetics, CSL Behring, Biotronik, Shockwave, Terumo, and Medtronic. Gregg W. Stone discloses that he has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Pulnovo, Infraredx, Abiomed, Amgen, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has served as a consultant to Abbott, Daiichi Sankyo, Ablative Solutions, CorFlow, Apollo Therapeutics, Cardiomech, Gore, Robocath, Miracor, Vectorious, Abiomed, Valfix, TherOx, HeartFlow, Neovasc, Ancora, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, Impulse Dynamics, Adona Medical, Millennia Biopharma, Oxitope, Cardiac Success, HighLife; and has equity/options from Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, and Xenter. Dr. Stone's employer, Mount Sinai Hospital, receives research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Bioventrix, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Phillips, Biosense-Webster, Shockwave, Vascular Dynamics, Pulnovo, and V-wave. Family disclosure: Dr. Stone's daughter is an employee at IQVIA. William W. O'Neill is a consultant to Abiomed, Zoll, and Edwards Lifesciences., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Despite significant morbidity and mortality, recent advances in cardiogenic shock (CS) management have been associated with increased survival. However, little is known regarding the management of patients who survive CS with heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFrEF), and the utilization of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in these patients has not been well described. To fill this gap, we investigated the use of GDMT during an admission for CS and short-term outcomes using the Inova single-centre shock registry., Methods: We investigated the implementation of GDMT for patients who survived an admission for CS with HFrEF using data from our single-centre shock registry from January 2017 to December 2019. Baseline characteristics, discharge clinical status, data on GDMT utilization and 30 day, 6 month and 12 month patient outcomes were collected by retrospective chart review., Results: Among 520 patients hospitalized for CS during the study period, 185 (35.6%) had HFrEF upon survival to discharge. The median age was 64 years [interquartile range (IQR) 56, 70], 72% (n = 133) were male, 22% (n = 40) were Black and 7% (n = 12) were Hispanic. Forty-one per cent of patients (n = 76) presented with shock related to acute myocardial infarction (AMI), while 59% (n = 109) had HF-related CS (HF-CS). The median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 7, 18). At discharge, the proportions of patients on beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs)/angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) were 78% (n = 144), 58% (n = 107) and 55% (n = 101), respectively. Utilization of three-drug GDMT was 33.0% (n = 61). Ten per cent of CS survivors with HFrEF (n = 19) were not prescribed any component of GDMT at discharge. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for baseline GDMT use revealed that patients with lower LVEF and those who transferred to our centre from an outside hospital were more likely to experience GDMT addition (P < 0.05). Patients prescribed at least one additional class of GDMT during admission had higher odds of 6 month and 1 year survival (P < 0.01): On average, 6 month survival odds were 7.1 times greater [confidence interval (CI) 1.9, 28.5] and 1 year survival odds were 6.0 times greater than those who did not have at least one GDMT added (CI 1.9, 20.5)., Conclusions: Most patients who survived CS admission with HFrEF in this single-centre CS registry were not prescribed all classes or goal doses of GDMT at hospital discharge. These findings highlight an urgent need to augment multidisciplinary efforts to enhance the post-discharge medical management and outcomes of patients who survive CS with HFrEF., (© 2024 The Author(s). ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: There are limited data on volume-outcome relationships in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with cardiogenic shock (CS)., Objectives: In this study, the authors sought to evaluate the association between hospital percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) volume and readmission after AMI-CS., Methods: Adult AMI-CS patients were identified from the Nationwide Readmissions Database for 2016-2019 and were categorized into hospital quartiles (Q1 lowest volume to Q4 highest) based on annual inpatient PCI volume. Outcomes of interest included 30-day all-cause, cardiac, noncardiac, and heart-failure (HF) readmissions., Results: There were 49,558 AMI-CS admissions at 3,954 PCI-performing hospitals. Median annual PCI volume was 174 (Q1-Q3: 70-316). Patients treated at Q1 hospitals were on average older, female, and with higher comorbidity burden. Patients at Q4 hospitals had higher rates of noncardiac organ dysfunction, complications, and use of cardiac support therapies. Overall, 30-day readmission rate was 18.5% (n = 9,179), of which cardiac, noncardiac, and HF readmissions constituted 56.2%, 43.8%, and 25.8%, respectively. From Q1 to Q4, there were no differences in 30-day all-cause (17.6%, 18.4%, 18.2%, 18.7%; P = 0.55), cardiac (10.9%, 11.0%, 10.6%, 10.2%; P = 0.29), and HF (5.0%, 4.8%, 4.8%, 4.8%; P = 0.99) readmissions. Noncardiac readmissions were noted more commonly in higher quartiles (6.7%, 7.4%, 7.7%, 8.5%; P = 0.001) but was not significant after multivariable adjustment. No relationship was noted between hospital PCI volume as a continuous variable and readmissions., Conclusions: In AMI-CS, there was no association between hospital annual PCI volume and 30-day readmissions despite higher acuity in the higher volume PCI centers suggestive of better care pathways for CS at higher volume centers., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Bharadwaj reports consulting and speaker fees from Abiomed, Shockwave Medical, and Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. Dr. Truesdell reports consultant fees from Abiomed, Inc., and speaker's bureau membership for Abiomed, Inc. Dr. Lemor reports speaker fees from Abiomed. Dr. Cohen has received research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Corvia Medical, Philips, Brain-Q, Saranas, Zoll Medical, CathWorks, and ANCORA, and has received consultant fees from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Corvia Medical, Impulse Dynamics, AngioInsight, and HeartBeam. Dr. Lansky has received speaker fees from Keystone Heart. Dr. O'Neill reports grant/research support from St. Jude Medical, Edwards Life Sciences, and Biomed; consulting fees/honoraria from Medtronic and Abiomed; and major stock shareholder/equity in Synecor, Accumed, Neovasc, Tendyne, and Mitralign. The remaining authors have no competing interests to declare.

More than 1 million transcatheter-based cardiovascular procedures across the spectrum of interventional cardiology are performed annually in the United States. With the expanded indications for and increased complexities associated with these procedures, interventional cardiologists are expected to possess the requisite expertise to complete these interventions safely and effectively. While the art of vascular access and closure remains a prerequisite and critical skillset in contemporary practice, there remain significant variations in the techniques employed, resulting in the bleeding and vascular complications encountered in clinical practice. With an increasing recognition of the potential merits to standardized approaches to vascular access and closure, cardiovascular societies have put forth recommendations around best practices for performing these procedures in the cardiac catheterization laboratories. In this review, we aim to: (1) Examine the evolving definitions of bleeding and vascular complications; (2) Review best practices for transradial and transfemoral access and closure, including for large bore procedures; and (3) Highlight knowledge gaps and proposed areas of clinical research pertaining to vascular access which may inform clinical practice and potentially optimize the outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter-based cardiac and vascular interventions., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2024 Eltelbany, Fabbri, Batchelor, Cilia, Ducoffe, Endicott, Epps, McBurnie, Neville, Rosner, Sherwood, Spinosa, Truesdell, Vorgang, Damluji and Tehrani.)

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a time-sensitive and hemodynamically complex syndrome with a broad spectrum of etiologies and clinical presentations. Despite contemporary therapies, CS continues to maintain high morbidity and mortality ranging from 35 to 50%. More recently, burgeoning observational research in this field aimed at enhancing the early recognition and characterization of the shock state through standardized team-based protocols, comprehensive hemodynamic profiling, and tailored and selective utilization of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices has been associated with improved outcomes. In this narrative review, we discuss the pathophysiology of CS, novel phenotypes, evolving definitions and staging systems, currently available pharmacologic and device-based therapies, standardized, team-based management protocols, and regionalized systems-of-care aimed at improving shock outcomes. We also explore opportunities for fertile investigation through randomized and non-randomized studies to address the prevailing knowledge gaps that will be critical to improving long-term outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The handling editor LC declared a past co-authorship with the authors CR, SD, MP., (© 2024 Mehta, Vavilin, Nguyen, Batchelor, Blumer, Cilia, Dewanjee, Desai, Desai, Flanagan, Isseh, Kennedy, Klein, Moukhachen, Psotka, Raja, Rosner, Shah, Tang, Truesdell, Tehrani and Sinha.)

Background: Left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction worsens outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The objective of this study, therefore, was to evaluate outcomes of pLVAD-supported high-risk PCI (HRPCI) patients according to LV ejection fraction (LVEF)., Methods: Patients from the PROTECT III study undergoing pLVAD-supported HRPCI were stratified according to baseline LVEF: severe LV dysfunction (LVEF <30%), mild and moderate LV dysfunction (LVEF ≥30% to <50%), or preserved LV function (LVEF ≥50%). Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE: composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischemic attack, and repeat revascularization), and PCI-related complications were assessed at 90 days and mortality was assessed at 1-year., Results: From March 2017 to March 2020, 940 patients had evaluable baseline LVEF recorded in the study database. Patients with preserved LV function were older, more frequently presented with myocardial infarction, and underwent more left main PCI and atherectomy. Immediate PCI-related coronary complications were infrequent (2.7%, overall), similar between groups (P = 0.98), and not associated with LVEF. Unadjusted 90-day MACCE rates were similar among LVEF groups; however, as a continuous variable, LVEF was associated with both 90-day MACCE (adj.HR per 5% 0.89, 95% CI [0.80, 0.98], P = 0.018) and 1-year mortality (adj.HR per 5% 0.84 [0.78, 0.90], P <0.0001)., Conclusions: Patients who underwent pLVAD-supported HRPCI exhibited low incidence of PCI-related complications, regardless of baseline LVEF. However, LVEF was associated with 90-day MACCE and 1-year mortality., Competing Interests: Disclosures C.L. Grines reports participation on the advisory boards for Philips and Abiomed. W.B. Batchelor reports consulting for Abbott, Medtronic, Abiomed, and Boston Scientific. A.S. Bharadwaj has received consultant and speaker fees from Abiomed Inc, Cardiovascular Systems Inc and Shockwave Medical. J.W. Moses reports holding equity in Orchestra Biomed. A.G. Truesdell has received consultant and speaker fees from Abiomed, Inc. and Shockwave Medical Inc. S.J. Baron reports receiving consulting fees from Abbott, Abiomed, Edwards LifeSciences, and MitraLabs outside the submitted work as well as speaker fees from and advisory board membership with Boston Scientific. A.J. Lansky received speaker fees from Keystone Heart. M.B. Basir reports consultant fees from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, and Zoll. D.J. Cohen reports grant funding and consulting income from Edwards LifeSciences, Medtronic, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Philips, and CathWorks. W.W. O'Neill reports grant/research support from St. Jude Medical, Edwards Life Sciences, and Biomed; consulting fees/honoraria from Medtronic and Abiomed; and major stock shareholder/equity in Synecor, Accumed, Neovasc, Tendyne, and Mitral Align. The remaining authors report no relevant conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Coronary chronic total occlusions (CTO) are present in up to one-third of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). It is thus essential for all clinical cardiologists to possess a basic awareness and understanding of CTOs, including optimal evaluation and management. While percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for CTO lesions has many similarities to non-CTO PCI, there are important considerations pertaining to pre-procedural evaluation, interventional techniques, procedural complications, and post-procedure management and follow-up unique to patients undergoing this highly specialized intervention. Distinct from other existing topical reviews, the current manuscript focuses on key knowledge relevant to non-interventional cardiologists., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2024 Cilia, Megaly, Davies, Tehrani, Batchelor and Truesdell.)

Background: There are limited data on the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients who require prolonged mechanical circulatory support (MCS) after Impella-supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI)., Aims: The aim of this study is to describe the contemporary clinical characteristics, outcomes, and predictors associated with prolonged MCS support after assisted HR-PCI., Methods: Patients enrolled in the prospective, multicentre, clinical endpoint-adjudicated PROTECT III study who had undergone HR-PCI using Impella were evaluated. Patient and procedural characteristics and outcomes for those who received prolonged MCS beyond the duration of their index procedure were compared to those in whom MCS was successfully weaned and explanted at the conclusion of the index PCI., Results: Among 1,155 patients who underwent HR-PCI with Impella between 2017 and 2020 and had sufficient data to confirm the duration of Impella support, 16.5% received prolonged MCS (mean duration 25.2±31.1 hours compared with 1.8±5.8 hours for those who only received intraprocedural MCS). Patients receiving prolonged support presented with more urgent indications (e.g., acute coronary syndromes [ACS], lower ejection fraction [EF], elevated baseline heart rate and lower systolic blood pressure). Use of the Impella CP, intraprocedural complications, periprocedural complications and in-hospital mortality were all more common amongst the prolonged MCS group. Prolonged MCS was associated with increased rates of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality at 90-day follow-up., Conclusions: Patients receiving prolonged MCS after Impella-supported HR-PCI presented with more ACS, reduced EF and less favourable haemodynamics. Additionally, they were more likely to experience intraprocedural and periprocedural complications as well as increased in-hospital and post-discharge mortality.

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: A.G.T.: Consultant/Speakers Bureau, Abiomed, and Shockwave; CR: Consultant/Speakers Bureau and Getinge; and C.B.F.: Consultant/Speakers Bureau, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and HLS Therapeutics; Research Grants: Bayer, Amgen, and Novartis.

Background: Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices increase systemic blood pressure and end organ perfusion while reducing cardiac filling pressures., Methods and Results: The National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCT03677180) is a single-arm, multicenter study. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of utilizing early MCS with Impella in patients presenting with AMI-CS. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. A total of 406 patients were enrolled at 80 sites between 2016 and 2020. Average age was 64±12 years, 24% were female, 17% had a witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, 27% had in-hospital cardiac arrest, and 9% were under active cardiopulmonary resuscitation during MCS implantation. Patients presented with a mean systolic blood pressure of 77.2±19.2 mm Hg, 85% of patients were on vasopressors or inotropes, mean lactate was 4.8±3.9 mmol/L and cardiac power output was 0.67±0.29 watts. At 24 hours, mean systolic blood pressure improved to 103.9±17.8 mm Hg, lactate to 2.7±2.8 mmol/L, and cardiac power output to 1.0±1.3 watts. Procedural survival, survival to discharge, survival to 30 days, and survival to 1 year were 99%, 71%, 68%, and 53%, respectively., Conclusions: Early use of MCS in AMI-CS is feasible across varying health care settings and resulted in improvements to early hemodynamics and perfusion. Survival rates to hospital discharge were high. Given the encouraging results from our analysis, randomized clinical trials are warranted to assess the role of utilizing early MCS, using a standardized, multidisciplinary approach.

Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Basir is a consultant/speaker for Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, Saranas, and Zoll and receives funding from Abiomed, Chiesi, Saranas, Shockwave Medical, and Zoll. Dr. Kearney reports is consultant for Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Systems, Medtronic, Teleflex, and Shockwave Medical and receives research funding from Teleflex. Dr. Kaki reports is consultant/speaker for Abiomed, Abbott Vascular, Cardiovascular Systems, and Shockwave Medical. Dr. Lichaa is a consultant for Abiomed, Abbott Vascular, Philips, and Cordis. Dr. Smith is a consultant/speaker for Abiomed, Boston Scientific, and Maquet. Dr. Truesdell is a consultant/speaker for Abiomed and Shockwave Medical. Dr. Vallabhajosyula receives intramural funding from Wake Forest University. The remaining authors have no competing interests to declare.

There are limited and conflicting data on the initial management of intermediate-risk (or submassive) pulmonary embolism (PE). This study sought to compare the outcomes of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) in combination with systemic anticoagulation (SA) to SA alone. A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane databases from inception to March 1, 2023 for studies comparing the outcomes of CDT + SA versus SA alone in intermediate-risk PE. The outcomes were in-hospital, 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year mortality; bleeding; blood transfusion; right ventricular recovery; and length of stay. Random-effects models was used to calculate the pooled incidence and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 15 (2 randomized and 13 observational) studies with 10,549 (2,310 CDT + SA and 8,239 SA alone) patients were included. Compared with SA, CDT + SA was associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.56, p <0.001), 30-day mortality (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.67, p = 0.002), 90-day mortality (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.67, p = 0.002), and 1-year mortality (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.97, p = 0.04). There were no significant differences between the 2 cohorts in the rates of major bleeding (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.68, p = 0.56), minor bleeding (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.97 to 3.46, p = 0.06), and blood transfusion (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.15, p = 0.08). In conclusion, CDT + SA is associated with significantly lower short-term and long-term all-cause mortality, without any differences in major/minor bleeding, in patients with intermediate-risk PE., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Little is known about sex-related differences in outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) treated within a standardized team-based approach (STBA)., Methods: We evaluated 520 consecutive patients (151 women and 369 men) with CS due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF) in a single-center registry (January 2017-December 2019) and examined outcomes according to sex and CS phenotype. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events, 30-day mortality, major bleeding, vascular complications, and stroke., Results: Women with AMI-CS had higher baseline acuity (CardShock score: female [F]: 5.5 vs male [M]: 4.0; P = .04). Women with HF-CS more often presented with cardiac arrest (F: 12.4% vs M: 2.4%; P < .01) and had higher rates of vasopressor use (F: 70.8% vs M: 58.0%; P = .04) and mechanical circulatory support (F: 46.1% vs M: 32.5%; P = .04). There were no sex-related differences in in-hospital mortality for AMI-CS (F: 45.2% vs M: 36.9%; P = .28) and HF-CS (F: 28.1% vs M: 24.5%; P = .56). Women with HF-CS experienced higher rates of major bleeding (F: 25.8% vs M: 13.7%; P = .02) and vascular complications (F: 15.7% vs M: 6.1%; P = .01). However, female sex was not an independent predictor of these complications. No sex differences in survival were noted at 1 year., Conclusions: Within an STBA, although women with AMI-CS and HF-CS presented with higher acuity, they experienced similar in-hospital mortality, major adverse cardiac events, 30-day mortality, stroke, and 30-day readmissions as men. Further research is needed to better understand the extent to which historical differences in CS outcomes can be mitigated by an STBA., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Behnam Tehrani is a consultant to Medtronic and Abiomed. Alexander Truesdell is a consultant to and on the speakers bureau for Abiomed. Wayne Batchelor is a consultant to Medtronic, Abbott, Edwards LifeSciences, Boston Scientific, and Abiomed and receives research support from Boston Scientific and Abbott. All other authors report no financial interests.

Background: There are limited data on the relationship of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) management strategy and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA)., Aims: To investigate the trends and outcomes of IHCA in STEMI by management strategy., Methods: Adult with STEMI complicated by IHCA from the National Inpatient Sample (2000-2017) were stratified into early percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (day 0 of hospitalization), delayed PCI (PCI ≥ day 1), or medical management (no PCI). Coronary artery bypass surgery was excluded. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, adverse events, length of stay, and hospitalization costs., Results: Of 3,967,711 STEMI admissions, IHCA was noted in 102,424 (2.6%) with an increase in incidence during this study period. Medically managed STEMI had higher rates of IHCA (3.6% vs 2.0% vs 1.3%, p < 0.001) compared to early and delayed PCI, respectively. Revascularization was associated with lower rates of IHCA (early PCI: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.44 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-0.44], p < 0.001; delayed PCI aOR 0.33 [95% CI 0.32-0.33], p < 0.001) compared to medical management. Non-revascularized patients had higher rates of non-shockable rhythms (62% vs 35% and 42.6%), but lower rates of multiorgan damage (44% vs 52.7% and 55.6%), cardiogenic shock (28% vs 65% and 57.4%) compared to early and delayed PCI, respectively (all p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was lower with early PCI (49%, aOR 0.18, 95% CI 0.17-0.18), and delayed PCI (50.9%, aOR 0.18, 95% CI 0.17-0.19) (p < 0.001) compared to medical management (82.5%)., Conclusion: Early PCI in STEMI impacts the natural history of IHCA including timing and type of IHCA., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Technological and procedural innovations presently permit the safe and effective performance of increasingly complex percutaneous coronary interventions, while new mechanical circulatory support devices offer circulatory and ventricular support to patients with severely reduced left ventricular systolic function and deranged cardiovascular hemodynamics. Together, these advances now permit the application of complex percutaneous coronary interventions to higher-risk patients who might otherwise be left untreated. Increasing observational data support the use of mechanical circulatory support in appropriate complex and high-risk patients as part of a larger multidisciplinary heart team treatment plan. In-progress and upcoming randomized clinical trials may provide higher-quality evidence to better guide management decisions in the near future., Competing Interests: Disclosure: AGT has received consultancy and speakers fees from Abiomed and Shockwave Medical. RD has recevied consultancy and speakers fees from Abiomed, Asahi Intec, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Siemens Healthcare, and Shockwave Medical. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Radcliffe Group Ltd.)

Cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) morbidity and mortality conferences (MMCs) are a critical component of CCL quality improvement programs and are important for the education of cardiology trainees and the lifelong learning of CCL physicians and team members. Despite their fundamental role in the functioning of the CCL, no consensus exists on how CCL MMCs should identify and select cases for review, how they should be conducted, and how results should be used to improve CCL quality. In addition, medicolegal ramifications of CCL MMCs are not well understood. This document from the American College of Cardiology's Interventional Section attempts to clarify current issues and options in the conduct of CCL MMCs and to recommend best practices for their conduct., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The established benefits of cooling along with development of sophisticated methods to safely and precisely induce, maintain, monitor, and reverse hypothermia have led to the development of targeted temperature management (TTM). Early trials in human subjects showed that hypothermia conferred better neurological outcomes when compared to normothermia among survivors of cardiac arrest, leading to guidelines recommending targeted hypothermia in this patient population. Multiple studies have sought to explore and compare the benefit of hypothermia in various subgroups of patients, such as survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest versus in-hospital cardiac arrest, and survivors of an initial shockable versus non-shockable rhythm. Larger and more recent trials have shown no statistically significant difference in neurological outcomes between patients with targeted hypothermia and targeted normothermia; further, aggressive cooling is associated with a higher incidence of multiple systemic complications. Based on this data, temporal trends have leaned towards using a lenient temperature target in more recent times. Current guidelines recommend selecting and maintaining a constant target temperature between 32 and 36 °C for those patients in whom TTM is used (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence), as soon as possible after return of spontaneous circulation is achieved and airway, breathing (including mechanical ventilation), and circulation are stabilized. The comparative benefit of lower (32-34 °C) versus higher (36 °C) temperatures remains unknown, and further research may help elucidate this. Any survivor of cardiac arrest who is comatose (defined as unarousable unresponsiveness to external stimuli) should be considered as a candidate for TTM regardless of the initial presenting rhythm, and the decision to opt for targeted hypothermia versus targeted normothermia should be made on a case-by-case basis., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Coronary angiography has historically served as the gold standard for diagnosis of coronary artery disease and guidance of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Adjunctive use of contemporary intravascular imaging (IVI) technologies has emerged as a complement to conventional angiography-to further characterize plaque morphology and optimize the performance of PCI. IVI has utility for preintervention lesion and vessel assessment, periprocedural guidance of lesion preparation and stent deployment, and postintervention assessment of optimal endpoints and exclusion of complications. The role of IVI in reducing major adverse cardiac events in complex lesion subsets is emerging, and further studies evaluating broader use are underway or in development. This paper provides an overview of currently available IVI technologies, reviews data supporting their utilization for PCI guidance and optimization across a variety of lesion subsets, proposes best practices, and advocates for broader use of these technologies as a part of contemporary practice., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Truesdell has served as a consultant for/on the Speakers Bureau of Abiomed Inc and Shockwave Medical Inc. Dr Kaul has served as a consultant for Shockwave Medical Inc and Cardiovascular Systems Inc. Dr Riley has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Abbott Vascular. Dr Young has served as a consultant for/on the Advisory Board of Medtronic Inc. Dr Batchelor has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, Idorsia, and V Wave; and has received research grant support from Boston Scientific and Abbott Vascular. Dr Maehara has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific, Philips, and Shockwave Medical; and has served on the Advisory Board of SpectraWave. Dr Welt has served on the Advisory Board of Medtronic Inc; and has minor equity in Xenter Inc. Dr Kirtane has received institutional funding to Columbia University and/or Cardiovascular Research Foundation from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Philips, ReCor Medical, Neurotronic, Biotronik, Chiesi, Bolt Medical, Magenta Medical, Canon, SoniVie, and Merck; in addition to research grants, institutional funding includes fees paid to Columbia University and/or Cardiovascular Research Foundation for consulting and/or speaking engagements in which Dr Kirtane controlled the content; has received consulting fees from IMDS; and has received travel expenses/meals from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Siemens, Philips, ReCor Medical, Chiesi, OpSens, Zoll, and Regeneron. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: There has been conflicting reports on the effect of new trainees on clinical outcomes at teaching hospitals in the first training month (July in the United States of America). We sought to assess this "July effect" in a contemporary acute myocardial infarction (AMI) population., Methods: Adult (>18 years) AMI hospitalizations in May and July in urban teaching and urban nonteaching hospitals in the United States were identified from the HCUP-NIS database (2000-2017). In-hospital mortality was compared between May and July admissions. A difference-in-difference analysis comparing a change in outcome from May to July in teaching hospitals to a change in outcome from May to July in nonteaching hospitals was also performed., Results: A total of 1,312,006 AMI hospitalizations from urban teaching (n = 710,593; 54.2%) or nonteaching (n = 601,413; 45.8%) hospitals in the months of May and July were evaluated. May admissions in teaching hospitals, had greater comorbidity, higher rates of acute multiorgan failure (10.6% vs. 10.2%, p < 0.001) and lower rates of cardiac arrest when compared to July admissions. July AMI admissions had lower in-hospital mortality compared to May (5.6% vs. 5.8%; adjusted odds ratio 0.94 [95% confidence interval 0.92-0.97]; p < 0.001) in teaching hospitals. Using the difference-in-difference model, there was no evidence of a July effect for in-hospital mortality (p = 0.19)., Conclusions: There was no July effect for in-hospital mortality in this contemporary AMI population., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

This study sought to compare the impact of additional anticoagulation or thrombolytic therapy in patients with cardiac arrest without ST-segment-elevation on electrocardiography and not receiving percutaneous coronary intervention. Three studies (two randomized controlled studies and one observational study) were included, which demonstrated that use of anticoagulation or thrombolytic therapy was associated with higher risk of bleeding, without improvements in time to return of spontaneous circulation or in-hospital mortality., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The treatment of left main (LM) coronary artery disease (CAD) requires complex decision-making. Recent clinical practice guidelines provide clinicians with guidance; however, decisions regarding treatment for individual patients can still be difficult. The American College of Cardiology's Cardiac Surgery Team and Interventional Council joined together to develop a practical approach to the treatment of LM CAD, taking into account randomized clinical trial, meta-analyses, and clinical practice guidelines. The various presentations of LM CAD based on anatomy and physiology are presented. Recognizing the complexity of LM CAD, which rarely presents isolated and is often in combination with multivessel disease, a treatment algorithm with medical therapy alone or in conjunction with percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting is proposed. A heart team approach is recommended that accounts for clinical, procedural, operator, and institutional factors, and features shared decision-making that meets the needs and preferences of each patient and their specific clinical situation., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Davidson is a co-investigator for Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott clinical trials. Dr Cleveland has received research grants from Medtronic and Abbott; has served on research committees for Abbott; has been a consultant for and received honoraria from ConneX Biomedical and Medtronic; and has received honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Welt has been a consultant for and received honoraria from Medtronic; and holds stock in Xenter, Inc. Dr Anwaruddin has been a consultant and proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; has served on a steering committee for Boston Scientific; and holds equity in East End Medical. Dr Grubb has been a speaker for Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; has been a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; has served on advisory boards for Medtronic and Abbott; has been a principal investigator for trials sponsored by Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic; and has been a consultant for Gore. Dr Kirtane has been a consultant for IMDS; has received travel expenses/meals from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, CSI, Siemens, Philips, ReCor Medical, Chiesi, OpSens, Zoll, and Regeneron; and has received research grants from, been a consultant for, an/or received speaker fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Amgen, CSI, Philips, ReCor Medical, Neurotronic, Biotronik, Chiesi, Bolt Medical, Magenta Medical, Canon, and SoniVie, paid to his institution. Dr Truesdell has received consultant and speaker fees, paid to his institution, from Abiomed Inc. Dr Windecker has received research and educational grants paid to employer from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, Corflow Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Guerbet, InfraRedx, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Medicure, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohm, Miracor Medical, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, OrPha Suisse, Pfizer, Polares, Regeneron, Sanofi, Servier, Sinomed, Terumo, Vifor, V-Wave; has served as advisory board member and/or member of the steering/executive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Recardio, Sinomed, Terumo, V-Wave, and Xeltis with payments to employer but no personal payments; and has been a member of the steering/executive committee group of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding by industry without impact on his personal remuneration. Dr Malaisrie has been a consultant for and received research funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Terumo Aortic, and Artivion. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To evaluate the prevalence, management and outcomes of concomitant aortic stenosis (AS) in admissions with acute myocardial infarction (AMI)., Methods: We used the HCUP-NIS database (2000-2017) to identify adult AMI admissions with concomitant AS. Outcomes of interest included prevalence of AS, in-hospital mortality, use of cardiac procedures, hospitalization costs, length of stay, and discharge disposition., Results: Among a total of 11,622,528 AMI admissions, 513,688 (4.4 %) were identified with concomitant AS. Adjusted temporal trends revealed an increase in STEMI and NSTEMI hospitalizations with concomitant AS. Compared to admissions without AS, those with AS were on average older, of female sex, had higher comorbidity, higher rates of NSTEMI (78.9 % vs 62.1 %), acute non-cardiac organ failure, and cardiogenic shock. Concomitant AS was associated with significantly lower use of coronary angiography (45.5 % vs 64.4 %), percutaneous coronary intervention (20.1 % vs 42.5 %), coronary atherectomy (1.7 % vs. 2.8 %) and mechanical circulatory support (3.5 % vs 4.8 %) (all p < 0.001). Admissions with AS had higher rates of coronary artery bypass surgery and surgical aortic valve replacement (5.9 % vs 0.1 %) compared to those without AS. Admissions with AMI and AS had higher in-hospital mortality (9.2 % vs. 6.0 %; adjusted OR 1.12 [95 % CI 1.10-1.13]; p <0.001). Concomitant AS was associated with longer hospital stay, more frequent palliative care consultations and less frequent discharges to home., Conclusions: In this 18-year study, an increase in prevalence of AS in AMI hospitalization was noted. Concomitant AS was associated with lower use of guideline-directed therapies and worse clinical outcomes among AMI admissions., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

In the United States, the frequency of using percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock is increasing. These devices require large-bore vascular access to provide left, right, or biventricular cardiac support, frequently under urgent/emergent circumstances. Significant technical and logistical variability exists in device insertion, care, and removal in the cardiac catheterization laboratory and in the cardiac intensive care unit. This variability in practice may contribute to adverse outcomes observed in centers that receive patients with cardiogenic shock, who are at higher risk for circulatory insufficiency, venous stasis, bleeding, and arterial hypoperfusion. In this position statement, we aim to: 1) describe the public health impact of bleeding and vascular complications in cardiogenic shock; 2) highlight knowledge gaps for vascular safety and provide a roadmap for a regulatory perspective necessary for advancing the field; 3) propose a minimum core set of process elements, or "vascular safety bundle"; and 4) develop a possible study design for a pragmatic trial platform to evaluate which structured approach to vascular access drives most benefit and prevents vascular and bleeding complications in practice., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Damluji was supported by research funding from the Pepper Scholars Program of the Johns Hopkins University Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center funded by the National Institute on Aging (P30-AG021334) and mentored patient-oriented research career development award from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) (K23-HL153771-01). Dr Samsky received salary support from a National Institutes of Health T32 Training Grant (HL069749). Dr Smilowitz was supported, in part, by the NHLBI (Award Number K23HL150315); and has served on the advisory board for Abbott Vascular. Dr Tehrani has served as a consultant for Medtronic; and on the advisory board for Abbott Medical and Retriever Medical. Dr West is an employee of Abbott Vascular. Dr Moazami has served on an independent provider quality panel for Medtronic related to safety evaluation of mechanical support devices. Dr Truesdell has served as a consultant and a speaker for Abiomed. Dr Dangas has received research grant support from Mt. Sinai Hospital, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Biotronik. Dr Amin has received research grant support from Terumo. Dr Rao has received institutional research funding from Bayer, the NHLBI, and the American College of Cardiology. Dr Krucoff has received consulting and research grants support from Edwards, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Cardiovascular Systems, Inc, Boston Scientific, Bard, Cook Medical, and Terumo. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose. The content and opinions expressed in this manuscript do not necessarily reflect guidance or policies of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The benefits of standardized care for cardiogenic shock (CS) across regional care networks are poorly understood., Objectives: The authors compared the management and outcomes of CS patients initially presenting to hub versus spoke hospitals within a regional care network., Methods: The authors stratified consecutive patients enrolled in their CS registry (January 2017 to December 2019) by presentation to a spoke versus the hub hospital. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included bleeding, stroke, or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events., Results: Of 520 CS patients, 286 (55%) initially presented to 34 spoke hospitals. No difference in mean age (62 years vs 61 years; P = 0.38), sex (25% vs 32% women; P = 0.10), and race (54% vs 52% white; P = 0.82) between spoke and hub patients was noted. Spoke patients more often presented with acute myocardial infarction (50% vs 32%; P &lt; 0.01), received vasopressors (74% vs 66%; P = 0.04), and intra-aortic balloon pumps (88% vs 37%; P &lt; 0.01). Hub patients were more often supported with percutaneous ventricular assist devices (44% vs 11%; P &lt; 0.01) and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (13% vs 0%; P &lt; 0.01). Initial presentation to a spoke was not associated with increased risk-adjusted 30-day mortality (adjusted OR: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.49-1.55]; P = 0.64), bleeding (adjusted OR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.49-1.62]; P = 0.70), stroke (adjusted OR: 0.74 [95% CI: 0.31-1.75]; P = 0.49), or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (adjusted OR 0.83 [95% CI: 0.50-1.35]; P = 0.44)., Conclusions: Spoke and hub patients experienced similar short-term outcomes within a regionalized CS network. The optimal strategy to promote standardized care and improved outcomes across regional CS networks merits further investigation., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Tehrani has served on the advisory board for Abbott; has received research grants from Boston Scientific and Inari Medical; and has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific. Dr Truesdell has served as a consultant for Abiomed. Dr Ibrahim has received honoraria from Medtronic. Dr Shah is supported by a National Institutes of Health K23 Career Development Award 1K23HL143179; has served as a consultant for Merck, Novartis, and Procyrion; and his institution has received grant support from Abbott, Roche, Merck and Bayer for unrelated research. Dr Batchelor has served as consultant for Boston Scientific, Abbott, Medtronic, and V-Wave. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Vallabhajosyula is supported by intramural funding from Wake Forest University School of Medicine. Dr Bortnick is supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant K23 HL146982. Dr Truesdell is a consultant for Abiomed Inc. Dr Kirtane has received research funding and consulting and/or speaker fees paid to Columbia University and/or Cardiovascular Research Foundation from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Philips, ReCor Medical, Neurotronic, Biotronik, Chiesi, Bolt Medical, Magenta Medical, Canon, and SoniVie; has received consulting fees from Interventional Medical Device Solutions; and has received travel expenses/meals paid by Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Siemens, Philips, ReCor Medical, Chiesi, OpSens, Zoll, and Regeneron. Dr Bortnick serves as site principal investigator for a multicenter trial sponsored by CSL-Behring, for which her institution receives compensation. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Introduction: The timing of hemodynamic support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) has yet to be defined. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the impact of timing of Impella initiation on early and midterm mortality., Methods: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted using PubMed and Cochrane databases. All studies reporting short-term mortality rates and timing of Impella placement in AMICS were included. Meta-regression analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed on the primary endpoint, short-term mortality (≤30 days), and secondary endpoints (midterm mortality, device-related bleeding, and limb ischemia)., Results: Of 1289 studies identified, 13 studies (6810 patients; 2970 patients identified as receiving Impella pre-PCI and 3840 patients receiving Impella during/post-PCI) were included in this analysis. Median age was 63.8 years (IQR 63-65.7); 76% of patients were male, and a high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors was noted across the entire population. Short-term mortality was significantly reduced in those receiving pre-PCI vs. during/post-PCI Impella support (37.2% vs 53.6%, RR 0.7; CI 0.56-0.88). Midterm mortality was also lower in the pre-PCI Impella group (47.9% vs 73%, RR 0.81; CI 0.68-0.97). The rate of device-related bleeding (RR 1.05; CI 0.47-2.33) and limb ischemia (RR 1.6; CI 0.63-2.15) were similar between the two groups., Conclusion: This analysis suggests that Impella placement prior to PCI in AMICS may have a positive impact on short- and midterm mortality compared with post-PCI, with similar safety outcomes. Due to the observational nature of the included studies, further studies are needed to confirm this hypothesis (CRD42022300372)., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The impact of Impella and ECMO (ECPELLA) in cardiogenic shock (CS) remains to be defined. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the benefit of ECPELLA compared to VA-ECMO in patients with non post-pericardiotomy CS., Methods: All studies reporting short term outcomes of ECpella or VA ECMO in non post-pericardiotomy CS were included. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Vascular and bleeding complications and LVAD implantation/heart transplant within 30-days were assessed as secondary outcomes., Results: Of 407 studies identified, 13 observational studies (13,682 patients, 13,270 with ECMO and 412 with ECpella) were included in this analysis. 30-day mortality was 55.8% (51.6-59.9) in the VA-ECMO group and 58.3% (53.5-63.0) in the ECpella group. At meta-regression analysis the implantation of IABP did not affect mortality in the ECMO group. The rate of major bleeding in patients on VA-ECMO and ECpella support were 21.3% (16.9-26.5) and 33.1% (25.9-41.2) respectively, while the rates of the composite outcome of LVAD implantation and heart transplantation within 30-days in patients on VA-ECMO and ECpella support were 14.4% (9.0-22.2) and 10.8%. When directly compared in 3 studies, ECpella showed a positive effect on 30-day mortality compared to ECMO (OR: 1.81: 1.039-3.159)., Conclusion: Our data suggest that ECpella may reduce 30-day mortality and increase left ventricle recovery, despite increased of bleeding rates., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors report no relationships that could be construed as a conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Little is known about clinical characteristics, hospital course, and longitudinal outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) related to heart failure (HF-CS) compared to acute myocardial infarction (AMI; CS related to AMI [AMI-CS])., Methods: We examined in-hospital and 1-year outcomes of 520 (219 AMI-CS, 301 HF-CS) consecutive patients with CS (January 3, 2017-December 31, 2019) in a single-center registry., Results: Mean age was 61.5±13.5 years, 71% were male, 22% were Black patients, and 63% had chronic kidney disease. The HF-CS cohort was younger (58.5 versus 65.6 years, P <0.001), had fewer cardiac arrests (15.9% versus 35.2%, P <0.001), less vasopressor utilization (61.8% versus 82.2%, P <0.001), higher pulmonary artery pulsatility index (2.14 versus 1.51, P <0.01), lower cardiac power output (0.64 versus 0.77 W, P <0.01) and higher pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (25.4 versus 22.2 mm Hg, P <0.001) than patients with AMI-CS. Patients with HF-CS received less temporary mechanical circulatory support (34.9% versus 76.3% P <0.001) and experienced lower rates of major bleeding (17.3% versus 26.0%, P= 0.02) and in-hospital mortality (23.9% versus 39.3%, P <0.001). Postdischarge, 133 AMI-CS and 229 patients with HF-CS experienced similar rates of 30-day readmission (19.5% versus 24.5%, P =0.30) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (23.3% versus 28.8%, P =0.45). Patients with HF-CS had lower 1-year mortality (n=123, 42.6%) compared to the patients with AMI-CS (n=110, 52.9%, P =0.03). Cumulative 1-year mortality was also lower in patients with HF-CS (log-rank test, P =0.04)., Conclusions: Patients with HF-CS were younger, and despite lower cardiac power output and higher pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, less likely to receive vasopressors or temporary mechanical circulatory support. Although patients with HF-CS had lower in-hospital and 1-year mortality, both cohorts experienced similarly high rates of postdischarge major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and 30-day readmission, highlighting that both cohorts warrant careful long-term follow-up., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03378739.

Abstract: Despite advances in early revascularization, percutaneous hemodynamic support platforms, and systems of care, cardiogenic shock (CS) remains associated with a mortality rate higher than 50%. Several risk stratification models have been derived since the 1990 s to identify patients at high risk of adverse outcomes. Still, limited information is available on the differences between scoring systems and their relative applicability to both acute myocardial infarction and advanced decompensated heart failure CS. Thus, we reviewed the similarities, differences, and limitations of published CS risk prediction models and herein discuss their suitability to the contemporary management of CS care., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 by the Shock Society.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Disclosure information for all authors is available in Supplemental Table S1.

Background: Increasing vasopressor dose is associated with increasing mortality in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS). It is unknown whether the use of vasopressors is independently harmful or if their use is secondary to decreasing intrinsic cardiac power output (CPO). Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices enhance CPO. We sought to evaluate the independent impact of increasing vasopressor dose on survival in the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI)., Methods: The NCSI is a single arm prospective trial evaluating outcomes associated with the use of MCS using Impella in patients with AMICS. Early initiation of MCS placement before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and rapid de-escalation of vasopressors guided by systematic use of invasive hemodynamic measures led to 70% in-hospital survival for the first 300 patients enrolled from July 2016 to December 2019 in 57 U.S. sites., Results: Hemodynamic measures were obtained immediately after MCS and PCI. Survival curves were constructed based on CPO and use of vasopressors. For patients with CPO ≤0.6 W, survival was 77.3%, 45.0%, and 35.3% when 0, 1, or ≥ 2 vasopressors were used (p = 0.02). Similarly, for patients with CPO >0.6 W survival was 81.7%, 72.6%, and 56.8%, respectively (p = 0.01). Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that increasing vasopressor requirements were independently associated with increasing mortality (p = 0.02)., Conclusion: Increasing vasopressor requirement is associated with increased mortality in AMICS independent of underlying CPO. Methods to decrease the need for vasopressors may enhance survival in AMICS., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Current practice in cardiogenic shock is guided by expert opinion in guidelines and scientific statements from professional societies with limited high quality randomized trial data to inform optimal patient management. An international panel conducted a modified Delphi process with the intent of identifying aspects of cardiogenic shock care where there was uncertainty regarding optimal patient management., Methods: An 18-person multidisciplinary panel comprising international experts was convened. A modified RAND/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness methodology was used. A survey comprising 70 statements was completed. Participants anonymously rated the appropriateness of each statement on a scale of 1 to 9: 1 to 3 inappropriate, 4 to 6 uncertain, and 7 to 9 appropriate. A summary of the results was discussed as a group, and the survey was iterated and completed again before final analysis., Results: There was broad alignment with current international guidelines and consensus statements. Overall, 44 statements were rated as appropriate, 19 as uncertain, and 7 as inappropriate. There was no disagreement with a disagreement index <1 for all statements. Routine fluid administration was deemed to be inappropriate. Areas of uncertainty focused panel on pre-PCI interventions, the use of right heart catheterization to guide management, routine use of left ventricular unloading strategies, and markers of futility when considering escalation to mechanical circulatory support., Conclusions: While there was broad alignment with current guidance, an expert panel found several aspects of care where there was clinical equipoise, further highlighting the need for randomized controlled trials to better guide patient management and decision making in cardiogenic shock.