Invasive Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Systemic immune-inflammation index as a novel predictor of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of cohort studies

BACKGROUND

The Systemic Immune-Inflammation Index (SII), a novel marker of inflammation based on neutrophil, platelet, and lymphocyte counts, has demonstrated potential prognostic value in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Our aim was to assess the correlation between the SII and major adverse cardiovascular events following percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and The Cochrane Library from inception to November 20, 2023, for cohort studies investigating the association between SII and the occurrence of MACEs after PCI. Statistical analysis was performed using Revman 5.3, with risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as relevant parameters.

RESULTS

In our analysis, we incorporated a total of 8 studies involving 11,117 participants. Our findings revealed that a high SII is independently linked to a increased risk of MACEs in PCI patients (RR: 2.08,95%CI: 1.87-2.32, I2 = 42%, p < 0.00001). Additionally, we demonstrated the prognostic value of SII in all-cause mortality, heart failure, and non-fatal myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated SII may serve as a potential predictor for subsequent occurrence of MACEs in patients undergoing PCI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Our protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42024499676).

Contemporary approach to cardiogenic shock care: a state-of-the-art review

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.

A review of the contemporary use of inotropes in patients with heart failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The role of inotropes has evolved with its use now expanding over multiple indications including cardiogenic shock, low cardiac output states, bridging therapy to transplant or mechanical support, and palliative care. There remains no consensus as to the recommended inotrope for the failing heart. We aim to provide an overview of the recent literature related to inotrope therapy and its application in patients with advanced heart failure and hemodynamic compromise.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this review, we outline various clinical scenarios that warrant the use of inotrope therapy and the associated recommendations. There remains no mortality benefit with inotrope use. Per American Heart Association recommendations, the choice of the inotropic agent should be guided by parameters such as blood pressure, concurrent arrhythmias, and availability of the medication. Outcome variability remains a heightened concern with inpatient inotropic use in both hemodynamically stable and unstable patients. Finally, inotropic use in palliative care continues to be a recommendation for symptom control and improvement in functional status when the appropriate social support is present for the patient.

SUMMARY

In summary, the ideal inotropic agent remains at the discretion of the clinical provider. Different clinical scenarios may favor one agent over another based on the type of cardiogenic shock and mechanism of action of the inotrope. A future shift towards characterizing inotrope use based on subgroup cardiogenic shock profiles may be seen, however further studies are needed to better understand these phenotypes. Inotrope therapy remains a keystone to bridging to advanced therapies and palliative care.

Norepinephrine versus epinephrine for hemodynamic support in post-cardiac arrest shock: A systematic review

PURPOSE

The preferred vasopressor in post-cardiac arrest shock has not been established with robust clinical outcomes data. Our goal was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing rates of in-hospital mortality, refractory shock, and hemodynamic parameters in post-cardiac arrest patients who received either norepinephrine or epinephrine as primary vasopressor support.

METHODS

We conducted a search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL from 2000 to 2022. Included studies were prospective, retrospective, or published abstracts comparing norepinephrine and epinephrine in adults with post-cardiac arrest shock or with cardiogenic shock and extractable post-cardiac arrest data. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. Other outcomes included incidence of arrhythmias or refractory shock.

RESULTS

The database search returned 2646 studies. Two studies involving 853 participants were included in the systematic review. The proposed meta-analysis was deferred due to low yield. Crude incidence of in-hospital mortality was numerically higher in the epinephrine group compared with norepinephrine in both studies, but only statistically significant in one. Risk of bias was moderate to severe for in-hospital mortality. Additional outcomes were reported differently between studies, minimizing direct comparison.

CONCLUSION

The vasopressor with the best mortality and hemodynamic outcomes in post-cardiac arrest shock remains unclear. Randomized studies are crucial to remedy this.

Timing of Initiation of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support and Outcomes Among Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) provides full hemodynamic support for patients with cardiogenic shock, but optimal timing of ECMO initiation remains uncertain. We sought to determine whether earlier initiation of ECMO is associated with improved survival in cardiogenic shock.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analyzed adult patients with cardiogenic shock who received venoarterial ECMO from the international Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) registry from 2009 to 2019, excluding those cannulated following an operation. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the association between time from admission to ECMO initiation and in-hospital death. Among 8619 patients (median, 56.7 [range, 44.8-65.6] years; 33.5% women), the median duration from admission to ECMO initiation was 14 (5-32) hours. Patients who had ECMO initiated within 24 hours (n=5882 [68.2%]) differed from those who had ECMO initiated after 24 hours, with younger age, more preceding cardiac arrest, and worse acidosis. After multivariable adjustment, patients with ECMO initiated >24 hours after admission had higher risk of in-hospital death (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.06-1.36]; P=0.004). Each 12-hour increase in the time from admission to ECMO initiation was incrementally associated with higher adjusted in-hospital mortality rate (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.03-1.10]; P<0.001). The association between longer time to ECMO and worse outcomes appeared stronger in patients with lower shock severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer delays from admission to ECMO initiation were associated with higher a mortality rate in a large-scale, international registry. Our analysis supports optimization of door-to-support time and the avoidance of inappropriately delayed ECMO initiation.

Reperfusion in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock and Prolonged Interhospital Transport Times

BACKGROUND

In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the preferred revascularization option. Little is known about the efficacy and safety of a pharmacoinvasive approach for patients with cardiogenic shock presenting to a non-PCI hospital with prolonged interhospital transport times.

METHODS

In a retrospective analysis of geographically extensive ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction network (2006-2021), 426 patients with cardiogenic shock and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction presented to a non-PCI-capable hospital and underwent reperfusion therapy (53.8% pharmacoinvasive and 46.2% pPCI). The primary clinical outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, renal failure requiring dialysis, cardiac arrest, or mechanical circulatory support, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding defined as an intracranial hemorrhage or bleeding that required transfusion was compared in an inverse probability weighted model. The electrocardiographic reperfusion outcome of interest was the worst residual ST-segment-elevation.

RESULTS

Patients with pharmacoinvasive treatment had longer median interhospital transport (3 hours versus 1 hour) and shorter median symptom-onset-to-reperfusion (125 minute-to-needle versus 419 minute-to-balloon) times. ST-segment resolution ≥50% on the postfibrinolysis ECG was 56.6%. Postcatheterization, worst lead residual ST-segment-elevation <1 mm (57.3% versus 46.3%; P=0.01) was higher in the pharmacoinvasive compared with the pPCI cohort, but no differences were observed in the worst lead ST-segment-elevation resolution ≥50% (77.4% versus 81.8%; P=0.57). The primary clinical end point was lower in the pharmacoinvasive cohort (35.2% versus 57.0%; inverse probability weighted odds ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.26-0.72]; P<0.01) compared with patients who received pPCI. An interaction between interhospital transfer time and reperfusion strategy with all-cause mortality was observed, favoring a pharmacoinvasive approach with transfer times >60 minutes. The incidence of the primary safety outcome was 10.1% in the pharmacoinvasive arm versus 18.7% in pPCI (adjusted odds ratio, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.14-1.09]; P=0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction presenting with cardiogenic shock and prolonged interhospital transport times, a pharmacoinvasive approach was associated with improved electrocardiographic reperfusion and a lower rate of death, dialysis, or mechanical circulatory support without an increase in major bleeding.

Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Sepsis-Associated Cardiogenic Shock With and Without Acute Myocardial Infarction

OBJECTIVES

To describe the current use and outcomes of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with sepsis-associated cardiogenic shocks with and without acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the United States.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

The National Inpatient Sample database from 2017 to 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients with sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock with and without AMI.

INTERVENTIONS

Temporary MCSs, including intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Multivariate logistic regression analyses adjusting for patient characteristics, organ failures, and socioeconomic status. Although the uses of IABP and pLVAD were associated with significantly lower odds of in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock (IABP: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.73, p < .001; pLVAD: aOR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45-0.98, p = .037), ECMO was not (aOR 1.51, 95% CI 0.93-2.45, p = 0.096). In the subgroup with AMI, temporary MCSs were not associated with significantly lower or higher odds of in-hospital mortality. In the subgroup without AMI, IABP was associated with significantly lower odds of in-hospital mortality (aOR 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.65, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although temporary MCS is deemed to be a feasible option in sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock, the selection of the right patients whose shock is driven mainly by cardiogenic shock rather than septic shock, as represented by low cardiac output and high systemic vascular resistance, plays a critical role in the feasibility of this approach in the absence of clinical trials.

Mechanical circulatory support versus vasopressors alone in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have compared Impella use to intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Our objective was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI who received Impella (percutaneous left ventricular assist device) without vasopressors, IABP without vasopressors, and vasopressors without mechanical circulatory support (MCS).

METHODS

We queried the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) using ICD-10 codes (2015-2018) to identify patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI. We created three propensity-matched cohorts to examine clinical outcomes in patients receiving Impella versus IABP, Impella versus vasopressors without MCS, and IABP versus vasopressors without MCS.

RESULTS

Among 17,762 patients, Impella use was associated with significantly higher in-hospital major bleeding (31.4% vs. 13.6%; p < 0.001) and hospital charges (p < 0.001) compared to IABP use, with no benefit in mortality (34.1% vs. 26.9%; p = 0.06). Impella use was associated with significantly higher mortality (42.3% vs. 35.7%; p = 0.02), major bleeding (33.9% vs. 22.7%; p = 0.001), and hospital charges (p < 0.001), when compared to the use of vasopressors without MCS. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between IABP use and the use of vasopressor without MCS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of retrospective data of patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI, Impella use was associated with higher mortality, major bleeding, and in-hospital charges when compared to vasopressor therapy without MCS. When compared to IABP use, Impella was associated with no mortality benefit, along with higher major bleeding events and in-hospital charges. A vasopressor-only strategy suggested no difference in clinical outcomes when compared to IABP. This study uses the NIS for the first time to highlight outcomes in AMI-CS patients undergoing PCI when treated with vasopressor support without MCS, compared to Impella and IABP use.

Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock

Cardiogenic shock is a complex and diverse pathological condition characterized by reduced myocardial contractility. The goal of treatment of cardiogenic shock is to improve abnormal hemodynamics and maintain adequate tissue perfusion in organs. If hypotension and insufficient tissue perfusion persist despite initial therapy, temporary mechanical circulatory support (t-MCS) should be initiated. This decade sees the beginning of a new era of cardiogenic shock management using t-MCS through the accumulated experience with use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), as well as new revolutionary devices or systems such as transvalvular axial flow pump (Impella) and a combination of VA-ECMO and Impella (ECPELLA) based on the knowledge of circulatory physiology. In this transitional period, we outline the approach to the management of cardiogenic shock by t-MCS. The management strategy involves carefully selecting one or a combination of the t-MCS devices, taking into account the characteristics of each device and the specific pathological condition. This selection is guided by monitoring of hemodynamics, classification of shock stage, risk stratification, and coordinated management by the multidisciplinary shock team.

Facility-based approach for the management of acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock in a rural medical centre: the Durango model

INTRODUCTION

Cardiogenic shock (CS) complicates 5%-15% of cases of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with inpatient mortality greater than 40%. The implementation of standardised protocols may improve clinical outcomes in patients with AMI-CS.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Durango model is a prospective single-centre registry designed to enable early identification of patients with STEMI-CS to facilitate primary reperfusion therapy with a shock team management algorithm in a rural level II heart attack centre. This prospective registry includes all patients >18 years of age presenting with STEMI with or without CS beginning on 1 February 2023. The primary outcome measures are adherence to model-based documentation of SCAI shock Classification prehospital and in the ED with appropriate STEMI shock alert for AMI and stages C, D, E shock; use of mechanical circulatory support Pre-PCI and door to support time <90 min.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board with a waiver of informed consent. The findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-review open access journal on completion of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The Durango model will demonstrate that the implementation of a STEMI shock team can be feasible in a rural medical centre through comprehensive education of a diverse group providers with different levels of experience, continuous model/device proficiency training and performance feedback.

ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: Systematic Review of Survival Predictors

Background

Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction is associated with reduced survival despite advancements in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes. Characterizing predictors of morbidity and mortality in this setting is crucial to improving risk stratification and management. Notwithstanding, the interplay of factors determining survival in this condition remains poorly studied.

Methods

Embase, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases were searched for original studies evaluating predictors of short-term (30-day or in-hospital) survival in ST elevation myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS). Included studies were analyzed by way of vote counting, identifying variables that predicted mortality or survival.

Results

Twenty-four studies, consisting of 14,735 patients (5649 nonsurvivors and 9086 survivors) were included. All studies were observational by design (17 retrospective and 7 prospective) with clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Unsuccessful revascularization, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, renal impairment, and other variables were identified as key independent predictors of mortality.

Conclusion

Several key variables have been shown to independently increase mortality in STEMI-CS populations. Future prospective studies examining the prognostic role of multivariate scoring systems incorporating these domains are required.

Network meta-analysis of temporary mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock

We performed a network meta-analysis of 11 published randomized clinical trials examining the use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in adults with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock, including 1,053 total patients with an observed in-hospital or 30-day mortality of 40.4%. None of the temporary MCS devices was associated with lower in-hospital or 30-day mortality compared with initial medical therapy or any other MCS device, either individually or in combination. These data do not support the routine use of temporary MCS devices for the purpose of reducing short-term mortality in unselected patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock.

Relationship between primary caregivers’ social support function, anxiety, and depression after interventional therapy for acute myocardial infarction patients

BACKGROUND

An acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is often treated with direct coronary intervention and requires home-based rehabilitation. Caregivers of patients with AMI need adequate social support to maintain high-quality care; however, their social support function is low, and relevant indicators for intervention must be identified.

AIM

To analyze the correlation between social support for primary caregivers, their anxiety, and depression, when caring for patients with AMI after interventional therapy.

METHODS

Using convenience sampling, we selected 300 primary caregivers of patients with AMI who had undergone interventional therapy. The Social Support Rating Scale (SSRS), Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), and Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) were used to assess the primary caregivers. A Pearson’s correlation analysis was used to analyze the correlations between the SSRS, SAS, and SDS, and a multiple logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the factors influencing the low social support function of primary caregivers. The receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the pre-dictive ability of the SAS and SDS for low social support function in primary caregivers.

RESULTS

Considering the norm among Chinese people, AMI caregivers’ objective support, subjective support, support utilization, and SSRS scores were lower, while their SAS and SDS scores were higher. The SSRS scores of female caregivers were higher than those of the male caregivers (t = 2.123, P = 0.035). The Pearson correlation analysis showed that objective support, subjective support, support utilization, and SSRS total scores were significantly correlated with both SAS (r = -0.414, -0.460, -0.416, -0.535) and SDS scores (r = -0.463, -0.379, -0.349, -0.472). Among the 300 AMI caregivers, 56 cases (18.67%) had a low level of support function (SSRS ≤ 22 points). Logistic regression model analysis showed that SAS and SDS were independent risk factors for low social support function of AMI caregivers, regardless of adjustment for other variables (P < 0.05). SAS and SDS predicted that the AUC of AMI caregivers with low support function was 0.84, sensitivity was 67.9 and 71.4, and specificity was 84.0 and 70.9, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The social support function of the primary caregiver of patients with AMI after interventional therapy was lower and negatively correlated with anxiety and depression in the primary caregiver.

Trends in acute myocardial infarction mortality in the European Union, 2012-2020

AIMS

To assess the sex- and age-specific trends in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) mortality in the modern European Union (EU-27) member states between years 2012 and 2020.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data on cause-specific deaths and population numbers by sex for each country of the EU-27 were retrieved through a publicly available European Statistical Office (EUROSTAT) dataset for the years 2012 to 2020. AMI-related deaths were ascertained when codes for AMI (ICD-10 codes I21.0-I22.0) were listed as the underlying cause of death in the medical death certificate. Deaths occurring before the age of 65 years were defined as premature deaths. To calculate annual trends, we assessed the average annual percent change (AAPC) with relative 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using joinpoint regression. During the study period, 1 793 314 deaths (1 048 044 males and 745 270 females) occurred in the EU-27 due to of AMI. The proportion of AMI-related deaths per 1000 total deaths decline from 5.0% to 3.5% both in the entire population (P for trend < 0.001) and in males or females, separately. Joinpoint regression analysis revealed a continuous linear decrease in age-adjusted AMI-related mortality from 2012 to 2020 among EU-27 members [AAPC: -4.6% (95% CI: -5.1 to -4.0), P < 0.001]. The age-adjusted mortality rate showed a plateau in some Eastern European countries and was more pronounced in EU-27 females and in subjects aged ≥65 years.

CONCLUSION

Over the last decade, the age-adjusted AMI-related mortality has been continuously declining in most of the in EU-27 member states. However, some disparities still exist between western and eastern European countries.

Cardiogenic Shock in Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy Patients: Red Flag for Myocardial Decline

Idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (IDCM) is one of the most common forms of nonischemic cardiomyopathy worldwide, possibly leading to cardiogenic shock (CS). Despite this heavy burden, the outcomes of CS in IDCM are poorly reported. Based on a large registry of unselected CS, our aim was to shed light on the 1-year outcomes after CS in patients with and without IDCM. FRENSHOCK was a prospective registry including 772 patients with CS from 49 centers. The 1-year outcomes (rehospitalizations, mortality, heart transplantation [HTx], ventricular assist devices [VAD]) were analyzed and adjusted on independent predictive factors. Within 772 CS included, 78 occurred in IDCM (10.1%). Patients with IDCM had more frequent history of chronic kidney failure and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. No difference was found in 1-month all-cause mortality between groups (28.2 vs 25.8%for IDCM and others, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio 1.14 [0.73 to 1.77], p = 0.57). Patients without IDCM were more frequently treated with noninvasive ventilation and intra-aortic balloon pump. At 1 year, IDCM led to higher rates of death or cardiovascular rehospitalizations (adjusted odds ratio 4.77 [95% confidence interval 1.13 to 20.1], p = 0.03) and higher rates of HTx or VAD for patients aged <65 years (adjusted odds ratio 2.68 [1.21 to 5.91], p = 0.02). In conclusion, CS in IDCM is a very common scenario and is associated with a higher rate of 1-year death or cardiovascular rehospitalizations and a more frequent recourse to HTx or VAD for patients aged <65 years, encouraging the consideration of it as a red flag for myocardial decline and urging for a closer follow-up and earlier evaluation for advanced heart failure therapies.

Standardized Definitions for Cardiogenic Shock Research and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: Scientific Expert Panel From the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC)

The Shock Academic Research Consortium is a multi-stakeholder group, including representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies, industry, and payers, convened to develop pragmatic consensus definitions useful for the evaluation of clinical trials enrolling patients with cardiogenic shock, including trials evaluating mechanical circulatory support devices. Several in-person and virtual meetings were convened between 2020 and 2022 to discuss the need for developing the standardized definitions required for evaluation of mechanical circulatory support devices in clinical trials for cardiogenic shock patients. The expert panel identified key concepts and topics by performing literature reviews, including previous clinical trials, while recognizing current challenges and the need to advance evidence-based practice and statistical analysis to support future clinical trials. For each category, a lead (primary) author was assigned to perform a literature search and draft a proposed definition, which was presented to the subgroup. These definitions were further modified after feedback from the expert panel meetings until a consensus was reached. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel recommendations focused on outcome definitions, including efficacy and safety.

Protocolised Management of Cardiogenic Shock and Shock Teams: A Narrative Review

Despite advances in therapy, the incidence of cardiogenic shock continues to increase, with significant mortality that has improved minimally over time. Treatment options for cardiogenic shock are complex and time-, resource-, and case volume-dependent, and involve multiple medical specialties. To provide early, more equitable, and standardised access to cardiogenic shock expertise with advanced therapies, cardiogenic shock teams with a protocolised treatment approach have been proposed. These processes have been applied across hospitals into integrated cardiogenic shock networks. This narrative review evaluates the role of cardiogenic shock teams, protocolised and regionalised shock networks, and the main individual components of protocolised shock management approaches.

Incidence and Predictors of Acute Limb Ischemia in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction-Insight from National Readmission Database

Acute limb ischemia (ALI) has been a rare complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), however, with the increasing use of mechanical circulatory devices it is seen more frequently. The incidence and predictors of ALI in patients with AMI in contemporary clinical practice are unknown. A retrospective review of patients with index hospitalization for AMI in the Nationwide Readmission Database from 2016 to 2019 was done. We evaluated the annual incidence of ALI and its impact on outcomes. We used multivariate logistic regression analysis to determine predictors of ALI. In 1,283,586 patients with AMI, 3,971 patients (0.31%) had ALI and 365 (0.03%) had limb amputation. The 3 major predictors of ALI were peripheral artery disease (odds ratio [OR] 11.91, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.78 to 13.51), intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist device (OR 4.39, 95% CI 3.86 to 5.00), and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (OR 4.37, 95% CI 3.19 to 6.01). Intra-aortic balloon pump had a substantially lower predictive ability (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.0, p <0.0001) than other forms of mechanical circulatory support. The mortality rate in patients with ALI was significantly higher than those without ALI (19.49% vs 4.85%, p <0.0001). Patients who developed ALI had higher rates of amputation (1.59% vs 0.02%, p <0.0001). This observational nationwide study showed that ALI is an important complication in patients with AMI and is more frequently seen in patients who have peripheral artery disease, and require a left ventricular assist device or venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. This complication was also associated with significantly higher in-hospital mortality.

Distribution and 24-hour transition of SCAI shock stages and their association with 30-day mortality in acute myocardial infarction

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) shock classification has been shown to predict mortality in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, data on the transition of SCAI stages and their association with mortality after AMI are limited. All patients with AMI admitted to Vietnam National Heart Institute between August 2022 and February 2023 were classified into SCAI stages A, B, and C/D/E at admission and were reevaluated in 24 hours. We used Kaplan-Meier estimate and multivariable Cox regression analysis to assess the association between SCAI stages transition and 30-day mortality. We included 139 patients (median age 69 years, 29.5% female). On admission, 50.4%, 20.1%, and 29.5% of patients were classified as SCAI stage A, B, and C/D/E, respectively. The proportion of patients whose SCAI stage improved, remained stable, or worsened after 24 hours was 14.4%, 66.2%, and 19.4%, respectively. The 30-day mortality in patients with initial SCAI stages A, B, and C/D/E on admission was 2.9%, 21.4%, and 61.0%, respectively (P < .001). The 30-day mortality was 2.4% for patients with baseline SCAI stage A/B who remained unchanged or improved, 30.0% for patients with baseline SCAI stage C/D/E who remained unchanged or improved, and 92.6% for patients with SCAI stage B/C/D/E who worsened at 24 hours after admission (log-rank P < .001). In patients with AMI, evaluating the SCAI stage shock stage on admission and reevaluating after 24 hours added more information about 30-day mortality.

Safety and Outcomes of Peripherally Administered Vasopressor Infusion in Patients Admitted with Shock to an Intensive Cardiac Care Unit-A Single-Center Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Vasopressors are frequently utilized for blood pressure stabilization in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), although with a questionable benefit. Obtaining central venous access is time consuming and may be associated with serious complications. Hence, we thought to evaluate whether the administration of vasopressors through a peripheral venous catheter (PVC) is a safe and effective alternative for the management of patients with CS presenting to the intensive cardiovascular care unit (ICCU).

METHODS

A prospective single-center study was conducted to compare the safety and outcomes of vasopressors administered via a PVC vs. a central venous catheter (CVC) in patients presenting with CS over a 12-month period.

RESULTS

A total of 1100 patients were included; of them, 139 (12.6%) required a vasopressor treatment due to shock, with 108 (78%) treated via a PVC and 31 (22%) treated via a CVC according to the discretion of the treating physician. The duration of the vasopressor administration was shorter in the PVC group compared with the CVC group (2.5 days vs. 4.2 days, respectively, p < 0.05). Phlebitis and the extravasation of vasopressors occurred at similar rates in the PVC and CVC groups (5.7% vs. 3.3%, respectively, p = 0.33; 0.9% vs. 3.3%, respectively, p = 0.17). Nevertheless, the bleeding rate was higher in the CVC group compared with the PVC group (3% vs. 0%, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of vasopressor infusions via PVC for the management of patients with CS is feasible and safe in patients with cardiogenic shock. Further studies are needed to establish this method of treatment.

Impact of the elevated angiopoietin-2 levels during Impella support on the short-term prognosis

Elevated serum angiopoietin-2 levels in patients with acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock with and without intra-aortic balloon pump as well as acute decompensated heart failure are associated with short-term mortality. However, its prognostic impact in patients with cardiogenic shock supported by Impella-incorporated mechanical circulatory support (MCS) remains unknown. Patients who received temporary MCS (Impella alone or Impella and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) in our institute between August 2018 and January 2022 were included in this prospective study. The serum levels of angiopoietin-2 were measured just before and following the initiation of temporary MCS therapy. Association between the levels of serum angiopoietin-2 and 30-day mortality was investigated. A total of 38 patients (median 72 years old, 63% men) were included. The median levels of serum angiopoetin-2 tended to decrease from baseline to 4 days following the initiation of temporary MCS from 5.2 (3.3, 10.5) ng/mL to 4.8 (2.7, 6.8) ng/mL (p = 0.132). A higher angiopoietin-2 (> 6.8 ng/mL) following the initiation of temporary MCS was associated with higher 30-day mortality (89.7% versus 44.4%, p = 0.0048) with an odds ratio 18.946 (95% confidence interval 1.624-218.695, p = 0.018) adjusted for potential confounders. A higher serum angiopoietin-2 level following the initiation of Impella-incorporated temporary MCS, instead of baseline angiopoetin-2 level, was associated with higher short-term mortality.

Shexiang Baoxin Pill treats acute myocardial infarction by promoting angiogenesis via GDF15-TRPV4 signaling

Angiogenesis has been considered a pivotal strategy for treating ischemic heart disease. One possible approach, the Shexiang Baoxin Pill (MUSKARDIA), has been noted to promote angiogenesis, but its underlying mechanism is still largely unknown. We aimed to determine the effects of MUSKARDIA on acute myocardial infarction (AMI), as well as the underlying mechanistic bases. AMI was induced in rats, using left anterior descending coronary arterial occlusion, and either 6 (low) or 12 (high-dose) mg/kg/day of MUSKARDIA was administered for 56 days. We found that MUSKARDIA improved cardiac function and counteracted against adverse remodeling among AMI rats, which most likely is due to it promoting angiogenesis. Transcriptome analysis by RNA-sequencing found that MUSKARDIA up-regulated cardiac pro-angiogenic genes, particularly growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15), which was confirmed by RT-qPCR. This up-regulation was also correlated with elevated serum GDF15 levels. In vitro analyses with human umbilical vein endothelial cells found that increased GDF15, stimulated by MUSKARDIA, resulted in enhanced cell migration, proliferation, and tubular formation, all of which were reversed after GDF15 knockdown using a lentiviral vector. Gene Ontology, as well as Kyoto Genes and Genomes enrichment analyses identified calcium signaling pathway as a major contributor to these outcomes, which was verified by Western blot and Cal-590 AM loading showing that transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily V member 4 protein (TRPV4) and intracellular Ca2+ levels increased in accordance with MUSKARDIA-induced GDF15 up-regulation, and decreased with GDF15 knock-down. Therefore, MUSKARDIA may exert its cardioprotective effects via stimulating the GDF15/TRPV4/calcium signaling/angiogenesis axis.

Escalation strategies, management, and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock patients receiving percutaneous left ventricular support

BACKGROUND

There are limited national-level data on the contemporary practices of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) use in acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS).

METHODS

We utilized the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-National/Nationwide Inpatient Sample data (2005-2017) to identify adult admissions (>18 years) with AMI-CS. MCS devices were classified as intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVAD), or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We evaluated trends in the initial device used (IABP alone, pLVAD alone or ≥2 MCS devices), device escalation, bridging to durable LVAD/heart transplantation, and predictors of in-hospital mortality and device escalation.

RESULTS

Among 327,283 AMI-CS admissions, 131,435 (40.2%) had an MCS device placed with available information on timing of placement. IABP, pLVAD, and ≥2 MCS devices were used as initial device in 120,928 (92.0%), 8202 (6.2%), and 2305 (1.7%) admissions, respectively. Most admissions were maintained on the initial MCS device with 1%-1.5% being escalated (IABP to pLVAD/ECMO, pLVAD to ECMO). Urban, medium, and large-sized hospitals and acute multiorgan failure were significant independent predictors of MCS escalation. In admissions receiving MCS, escalation of MCS device was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 1.56, 95% confidence interval:  1.38-1.75; p < 0.001). Admissions receiving durable LVAD/heart transplantation increased over time in those initiated on pLVAD and ≥2 MCS devices, resulting in lower in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In this 13-year study, escalation of MCS in AMI-CS was associated with higher in-hospital mortality suggestive of higher acuity of illness. The increase in number of durable LVAD/heart transplantations alludes to the role of MCS as successful bridge strategies.

Advances in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock

OBJECTIVES

To review a contemporary approach to the management of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS).

DATA SOURCES

We reviewed salient medical literature regarding CS.

STUDY SELECTION

We included professional society scientific statements and clinical studies examining outcomes in patients with CS, with a focus on randomized clinical trials.

DATA EXTRACTION

We extracted salient study results and scientific statement recommendations regarding the management of CS.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Professional society recommendations were integrated with evaluated studies.

CONCLUSIONS

CS results in short-term mortality exceeding 30% despite standard therapy. While acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been the focus of most CS research, heart failure-related CS now predominates at many centers. CS can present with a wide spectrum of shock severity, including patients who are normotensive despite ongoing hypoperfusion. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention Shock Classification categorizes patients with or at risk of CS according to shock severity, which predicts mortality. The CS population includes a heterogeneous mix of phenotypes defined by ventricular function, hemodynamic profile, biomarkers, and other clinical variables. Integrating the shock severity and CS phenotype with nonmodifiable risk factors for mortality can guide clinical decision-making and prognostication. Identifying and treating the cause of CS is crucial for success, including early culprit vessel revascularization for AMI. Vasopressors and inotropes titrated to restore arterial pressure and perfusion are the cornerstone of initial medical therapy for CS. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is indicated for appropriately selected patients as a bridge to recovery, decision, durable MCS, or heart transplant. Randomized controlled trials have not demonstrated better survival with the routine use of temporary MCS in patients with CS. Accordingly, a multidisciplinary team-based approach should be used to tailor the type of hemodynamic support to each individual CS patient's needs based on shock severity, phenotype, and exit strategy.

State of Shock: Contemporary Vasopressor and Inotrope Use in Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock is characterized by tissue hypoxia caused by circulatory failure arising from inadequate cardiac output. In addition to treating the pathologic process causing impaired cardiac function, prompt hemodynamic support is essential to reduce the risk of developing multiorgan dysfunction and to preserve cellular metabolism. Pharmacologic therapy with the use of vasopressors and inotropes is a key component of this treatment strategy, improving perfusion by increasing cardiac output, altering systemic vascular resistance, or both, while allowing time and hemodynamic stability to treat the underlying disease process implicated in the development of cardiogenic shock. Despite the use of mechanical circulatory support recently garnering significant interest, pharmacologic hemodynamic support remains a cornerstone of cardiogenic shock management, with over 90% of patients receiving at least 1 vasoactive agent. This review aims to describe the pharmacology and hemodynamic effects of current pharmacotherapies and provide a practical approach to their use, while highlighting important future research directions.

Habitual physical activity improves outcomes among patients with myocardial infarction

Purpose

This study evaluates the association between habitual physical activity (HPA) and the outcomes of patients with myocardial infarction (MI).

Methods

Patients newly diagnosed with MI were divided into two groups based on whether they engaged in HPA, defined as an aerobic activity with a duration of no less than 150 min/week, before the index admission. The primary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and cardiac readmission rate 1 year following the index date of admission. A binary logistic regression model was applied to analyze whether HPA was independently associated with 1-year MACEs, 1-year CV mortality, and 1-year cardiac readmission rate.

Results

Among the 1,266 patients (mean age 63.4 years, 72% male), 571 (45%) engaged in HPA, and 695 (55%) did not engage in HPA before MI. Patients who participated in HPA were independently associated with a lower Killip class upon admission (OR = 0.48: 95% CI, 0.32-0.71, p < 0.001) and a lower prevalence of 1-year MACEs (OR = 0.74: 95% CI, 0.56-0.98, p = 0.038) and 1-year CV mortality (OR = 0.50: 95% CI, 0.28-0.88, p = 0.017) than those who did not participate in HPA. HPA was not associated with cardiac-related readmission (OR = 0.87: 95% CI, 0.64-1.17, p = 0.35).

Conclusions

HPA before MI was independently associated with a lower Killip class upon admission, 1-year MACEs, and 1-year CV mortality rate.

Exposure to Arterial Hyperoxia During Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenator Support and Mortality in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Exposure to hyperoxia, a high arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), may be associated with worse outcomes in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (ECMO) support. We examined hyperoxia in the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry among patients receiving venoarterial ECMO for cardiogenic shock.

METHODS

We included Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry patients from 2010 to 2020 who received venoarterial ECMO for cardiogenic shock, excluding extracorporeal CPR. Patients were grouped based on PaO2 after 24 hours of ECMO: normoxia (PaO2 60-150 mmHg), mild hyperoxia (PaO2 151-300 mmHg), and severe hyperoxia (PaO2 >300 mmHg). In-hospital mortality was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 9959 patients, 3005 (30.2%) patients had mild hyperoxia and 1972 (19.8%) had severe hyperoxia. In-hospital mortality increased across groups: normoxia, 47.8%; mild hyperoxia, 55.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.23-1.53]; P<0.001); severe hyperoxia, 65.4% (adjusted odds ratio, 2.20 [95% CI, 1.92-2.52]; P<0.001). A higher PaO2 was incrementally associated with increased in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.14 per 50 mmHg higher [95% CI, 1.12-1.16]; P<0.001). Patients with a higher PaO2 had increased in-hospital mortality in each subgroup and when stratified by ventilator settings, airway pressures, acid-base status, and other clinical variables. In the random forest model, PaO2 was the second strongest predictor of in-hospital mortality, after older age.

CONCLUSIONS

Exposure to hyperoxia during venoarterial ECMO support for cardiogenic shock is strongly associated with increased in-hospital mortality, independent from hemodynamic and ventilatory status. Until clinical trial data are available, we suggest targeting a normal PaO2 and avoiding hyperoxia in CS patients receiving venoarterial ECMO.

Mechanical Circulatory Support in COVID-19

Despite aggressive care, patients with cardiopulmonary failure and COVID-19 experience unacceptably high mortality rates. The use of mechanical circulatory support devices in this population offers potential benefits but confers significant morbidity and novel challenges for the clinician. Thoughtful application of this complex technology is of the utmost importance and should be done in a multidisciplinary fashion by teams familiar with mechanical support devices and aware of the particular challenges provided by this complex patient population.

Trends in Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Use in Cardiogenic Shock After the SHOCK-II Trial

Myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (MI-CS) has a poor prognosis, even with early revascularization. Previously, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use was thought to improve outcomes, but the IABP-SHOCK-II (Intra-aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock-II study) trial found no survival benefit. We aimed to determine the trends in IABP use in patients who underwent percutaneous intervention over time. Data were taken from patients in the Melbourne Interventional Group registry (2005 to 2018) with MI-CS who underwent percutaneous intervention. The primary outcome was the trend in IABP use over time. The secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs). Of the 1,110 patients with MI-CS, IABP was used in 478 patients (43%). IABP was used more in patients with left main/left anterior descending culprit lesions (62% vs 46%), lower ejection fraction (<35%; 18% vs 11%), and preprocedural inotrope use (81% vs 73%, all p <0.05). IABP use was associated with higher bleeding (18% vs 13%) and 30-day MACCE (58% vs 51%, both p <0.05). The rate of MI-CS per year increased over time; however, after 2012, there was a decrease in IABP use (p <0.001). IABP use was a predictor of 30-day MACCE (odds ratio 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 2.29, p = 0.003). However, IABP was not associated with in-hospital, 30-day, or long-term mortality (45% vs 47%, p = 0.44; 46% vs 50%, p = 0.25; 60% vs 62%, p = 0.39). In conclusion, IABP was not associated with reduced short- or long-term mortality and was associated with increased short-term adverse events. IABP use is decreasing but is predominately used in sicker patients with greater myocardium at risk.

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction

Despite an improvement in pharmacological therapies and mechanical reperfusion, the outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is still suboptimal, especially in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). The incidence of CS accounts for 3-15% of AMI cases, with mortality rates of 40% to 50%. In contrast to a large number of trials conducted in patients with AMI without CS, there is limited evidence-based scientific knowledge in the CS setting. Therefore, recommendations and actual treatments are often based on registry data. Similarly, knowledge of the available options in terms of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices is not equally widespread, leading to an underutilisation or even overutilisation in different regions/countries of these treatment options and nonuniformity in the management of CS. The aim of this article is to provide a critical overview of the available literature on the management of CS as a complication of AMI, summarising the most recent evidence on revascularisation strategies, pharmacological treatments and MCS use.

A Review of Heart Failure in patients with COVID-19

The interplay of COVID-19 and heart failure is complex and involves direct and indirect effects. Patients with existing heart failure develop more severe COVID-19 symptoms and have worse clinical outcomes. Pandemic-related policies and protocols have negatively affected care for cardiovascular conditions and established hospital protocols, which is particularly important for patients with heart failure.

Update on cardiogenic shock: from detection to team management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The following review is intended to provide a summary of contemporary cardiogenic shock (CS) profiling and diagnostic strategies, including biomarker and hemodynamic-based (invasive and noninvasive) monitoring, discuss clinical differences in presentation and trajectory between acute myocardial infarction (AMI)-CS and heart failure (HF)-CS, describe transitions to native heart recovery and heart replacement therapies with a focus on tailored management and emerging real-world data, and emphasize trends in team-based initiatives and interventions for cardiogenic shock including the integration of protocol-driven care.

RECENT FINDINGS

This document provides a broad overview of contemporary scientific consensus statements as well as data derived from randomized controlled clinical trials and observational registry working groups focused on cardiogenic shock management.

SUMMARY

This review highlights the increasingly important role of pulmonary artery catheterization in AMI-CS and HF-CS cardiogenic shock and advocates for routine application of algorithmic approaches with interdisciplinary care pathways. Cardiogenic shock algorithms facilitate the integration of clinical, hemodynamic, and imaging data to determine the most appropriate patient hemodynamic support platform to achieve adequate organ perfusion and decongestion.

Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock: Current Studies and Future Directions

Cardiogenic shock (CS) caused by acute myocardial infarction (AMI) accounts for most deaths in the population with AMI and continues to be associated with high short-term mortality. Several temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have been developed to treat CS and studied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with AMI-CS. Unfortunately, none of these RCTs has demonstrated an improvement in survival with temporary MCS in AMI-CS. Potential reasons for these negative results in RCTs are numerous and reflect the challenges of enrolling critically ill patients with CS. Researchers have used observational study designs to provide insights about outcomes associated with the use of temporary MCS in AMI-CS. These observational studies have yielded conflicting results, in some cases contrary to the results of RCTs. Several limitations pertinent to both RCTs and observational analyses, mostly relating to selection bias and failure to consider unmeasured confounding variables and population heterogeneity, preclude drawing strong inferences regarding the effects of temporary MCS on survival in populations with AMI-CS. Understanding these limitations is essential to correctly interpreting the literature regarding temporary MCS to treat AMI-CS and is necessary to inform the design of future studies that will potentially provide stronger evidence. Optimally matching temporary MCS devices to the needs of individual patients with AMI-CS will presumably be more successful than indiscriminate application in unselected patients. In this review, we discuss the existing literature on temporary MCS to treat AMI-CS and describe the specific challenges that must be overcome to develop an improved evidence base for guiding clinical practice.

Incidence and predictors of acute limb ischemia in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

OBJECTIVE

To describe the incidence and predictors of acute limb ischemia (ALI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS).

METHODS

Patients with index hospitalizations for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock from 2016 to 2019 in the US National Readmission Database were identified. We evaluated the incidence of ALI and its associated mortality, length of stay, and cost of hospitalization. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine independent predictors of ALI in this population.

RESULTS

A total of 84,615 patients had AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock and 1302 (1.54%) developed ALI. The rates of ALI increased from 1.29% in 2016 to 1.66% in 2019 (P ≤ .002). The use of microaxial mechanical circulatory support increased from 2.25% in 2016 to 13.36% in 2019 (P = .0001). The major predictors of ALI included peripheral arterial disease (odds ratio [OR], 7.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.12-8.81), venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (OR, 4.40; 95% CI, 3.19-6.07), and microaxial mechanical circulatory support (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 2.74-3.55). ALI in patients with cardiogenic shock was associated higher mortality (39.20% vs 33.53%; P ≤ .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide observational study shows that ALI is an important complication of AMI with cardiogenic shock. This complication is associated with higher mortality. In addition to peripheral artery disease, the use of mechanical circulatory devices was associated with significantly higher rates of ALI.

Review of Pathophysiology of Cardiogenic Shock and Escalation of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex clinical entity that continues to carry a high risk of mortality. The landscape of CS management has changed with the advent of several temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices designed to provide hemodynamic support. It remains challenging to understand the role of different temporary MCS devices in patients with CS, as many of these patients are critically ill, requiring complex care with multiple MCS device options. Each temporary MCS device can provide different types and levels of hemodynamic support. It is important to understand the risk/benefit profile of each one of them for appropriate device selection in patients with CS.

RECENT FINDINGS

MCS may be beneficial in CS patients through augmentation of cardiac output with subsequent improvement of systemic perfusion. Selecting the optimal MCS device depends on several variables including the underlying etiology of CS, clinical strategy of MCS use (bridge to recovery, bridge to transplant or durable MCS, or abridge to decision), amount of hemodynamic support needed, associated respiratory failure, and institutional preference. Furthermore, it is even more challenging to determine the appropriate time to escalate from one MCS device to another or combine different MCS devices. In this review, we discuss the current available data published in the literature on the management of CS and propose a standardized approach for escalation of MCS devices in patients with CS. Shock teams can play an important role to help in hemodynamic-guided management and algorithm-based step-by-step approach in early initiation and escalation of temporary MCS devices at different stages of CS. It is important to define the etiology of CS, and stage of shock and recognize univentricular vs biventricular shock for appropriate device selection and escalation of therapy.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock: Results of the ECMO-CS Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly being used for circulatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock, although the evidence supporting its use in this context remains insufficient. The ECMO-CS trial (Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock) aimed to compare immediate implementation of VA-ECMO versus an initially conservative therapy (allowing downstream use of VA-ECMO) in patients with rapidly deteriorating or severe cardiogenic shock.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, investigator-initiated, academic clinical trial included patients with either rapidly deteriorating or severe cardiogenic shock. Patients were randomly assigned to immediate VA-ECMO or no immediate VA-ECMO. Other diagnostic and therapeutic procedures were performed as per current standards of care. In the early conservative group, VA-ECMO could be used downstream in case of worsening hemodynamic status. The primary end point was the composite of death from any cause, resuscitated circulatory arrest, and implementation of another mechanical circulatory support device at 30 days.

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients were randomized; after excluding 5 patients because of the absence of informed consent, 117 subjects were included in the analysis, of whom 58 were randomized to immediate VA-ECMO and 59 to no immediate VA-ECMO. The composite primary end point occurred in 37 (63.8%) and 42 (71.2%) patients in the immediate VA-ECMO and the no early VA-ECMO groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.46-1.12]; P=0.21). VA-ECMO was used in 23 (39%) of no early VA-ECMO patients. The 30-day incidence of resuscitated cardiac arrest (10.3.% versus 13.6%; risk difference, -3.2 [95% CI, -15.0 to 8.5]), all-cause mortality (50.0% versus 47.5%; risk difference, 2.5 [95% CI, -15.6 to 20.7]), serious adverse events (60.3% versus 61.0%; risk difference, -0.7 [95% CI, -18.4 to 17.0]), sepsis, pneumonia, stroke, leg ischemia, and bleeding was not statistically different between the immediate VA-ECMO and the no immediate VA-ECMO groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate implementation of VA-ECMO in patients with rapidly deteriorating or severe cardiogenic shock did not improve clinical outcomes compared with an early conservative strategy that permitted downstream use of VA-ECMO in case of worsening hemodynamic status.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT02301819.

Clinical Presentation and In-Hospital Trajectory of Heart Failure and Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) remains an understudied distinct clinical entity.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to profile a large cohort of patients with HF-CS focused on practical application of the SCAI (Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions) staging system to define baseline and maximal shock severity, in-hospital management with acute mechanical circulatory support (AMCS), and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

The Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry includes patients with CS, regardless of etiology, from 17 clinical sites enrolled between 2016 and 2020. Patients with HF-CS (non-acute myocardial infarction) were analyzed and classified based on clinical presentation, outcomes at discharge, and shock severity defined by SCAI stages.

RESULTS

A total of 1,767 patients with HF-CS were included, of whom 349 (19.8%) had de novo HF-CS (DNHF-CS). Patients were more likely to present in SCAI stage C or D and achieve maximum SCAI stage D. Patients with DNHF-CS were more likely to experience in-hospital death and in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and they escalated more rapidly to a maximum achieved SCAI stage, compared to patients with acute-on-chronic HF-CS. In-hospital cardiac arrest was associated with greater in-hospital death regardless of clinical presentation (de novo: 63% vs 21%; acute-on-chronic HF-CS: 65% vs 17%; both P < 0.001). Forty-five percent of HF-CS patients were exposed to at least 1 AMCS device throughout hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large contemporary HF-CS cohort, we identified a greater incidence of in-hospital death and cardiac arrest as well as a more rapid escalation to maximum SCAI stage severity among DNHF-CS. AMCS use in HF-CS was common, with significant heterogeneity among device types. (Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Registry [CSWG]; NCT04682483).

Treatment strategies of acute myocardial infarction: updates on revascularization, pharmacological therapy, and beyond

Owing to recent advances in early reperfusion strategies, pharmacological therapy, standardized care, and the identification of vulnerable patient subsets, the prognosis of acute myocardial infarction has improved. However, there is still considerable room for improvement. This review article summarizes the latest evidence concerning clinical diagnosis and treatment of acute myocardial infarction.

Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients With COVID-19 Presenting With Myocardial Infarction

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicating COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of cardiogenic shock and mortality. However, little is known about the frequency of use and clinical impact of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in these patients. We sought to define patterns of MCS utilization, patient characteristics, and outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with STEMI. The NACMI (North American COVID-19 Myocardial Infarction) is an ongoing prospective, observational registry of patients with COVID-19 positive (COVID-19+) with STEMI with a contemporary control group of persons under investigation who subsequently tested negative for COVID-19 (COVID-19-). We compared the baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of COVID-19+ and patients with COVID-19- according to the use of MCS. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, stroke, recurrent MI, and repeat unplanned revascularization. A total of 1,379 patients (586 COVID-19+ and 793 COVID-19-) enrolled in the NACMI registry between January 2020 and November 2021 were included in this analysis; overall, MCS use was 12.3% (12.1% [n = 71] COVID-19+/MCS positive [MCS+] vs 12.4% [n = 98] COVID-19-/MCS+). Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. The use of percutaneous coronary intervention was similar between the groups (84% vs 78%; p = 0.404). Intra-aortic balloon pump was the most frequently used MCS device in both groups (53% in COVID-19+/MCS+ and 75% in COVID-19-/MCS+). The primary outcome was significantly higher in COVID-19+/MCS+ patients (60% vs 30%; p = 0.001) because of very high in-hospital mortality (59% vs 28%; p = 0.001). In conclusion, patients with COVID-19+ with STEMI requiring MCS have very high in-hospital mortality, likely related to the significantly higher pulmonary involvement compared with patients with COVID-19- with STEMI requiring MCS.

The prognostic value of admission D-dimer level in patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction

Background

Shock is associated with the activation of the coagulation and fibrinolytic system, and D-dimer is the degradation product of cross-linked fibrin. However, the prognostic value of D-dimer in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains unclear.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data of consecutive patients with CS complicating AMI. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality and the secondary endpoint was the major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) including 30-day all-cause mortality, ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation, atrioventricular block, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, and non-fatal stroke. Restricted cubic spline (RCS) analyses were performed to assess the association between admission D-dimer and outcomes. A multivariable Cox regression model was performed to identify independent risk factors. The risk predictive potency with D-dimer added to the traditional risk scores was evaluated by C-statistics and the net reclassification index.

Results

Among 218 patients with CS complicating AMI, those who died during the 30-day follow-up presented with worse baseline characteristics and laboratory test results, including a higher level of D-dimer. According to the X-tile program result, the continuous plasma D-dimer level was divided into three gradients. The 30-day all-cause mortality in patients with low, medium, and high levels of D-dimer were 22.4, 53.3, and 86.2%, respectively (p < 0.001 for all). The 30-day incidence of MACEs was 46.3, 77.0, and 89.7%, respectively (p < 0.001). In the multivariable Cox regression model, the trilogy of D-dimer level was an independent risk predictor for 30-day mortality (median D-dimer cohort: HR 1.768, 95% CI 0.982-3.183, p = 0.057; high D-dimer cohort: HR 2.602, 95% CI 1.310-5.168, p = 0.006), a similar result was observed in secondary endpoint events (median D-dimer cohort: HR 2.012, 95% CI 1.329-3.044, p = 0.001; high D-dimer cohort: HR 2.543, 95% CI 1.452-4.453, p = 0.001). The RCS analyses suggested non-linear associations of D-dimer with 30-day mortality. The enrollment of D-dimer improved risk discrimination for all-cause death when combined with the traditional CardShock score (C-index: 0.741 vs. 0.756, p _difference = 0.004) and the IABP-SHOCK II score (C-index: 0.732 vs. 0.754, p _difference = 0.006), and the GRACE score (C-index: 0.679 vs. 0.715, p _difference < 0.001). Similar results were acquired after logarithmic transformed D-dimer was included in the risk score. The improvements in reclassification which were calculated as additional net reclassification index were 7.5, 8.6, and 12.8%, respectively.

Conclusion

Admission D-dimer level was independently associated with the short-term outcome in patients with CS complicating AMI and addition of D-dimer brought incremental risk prediction value to traditional risk prediction scores.