Multivessel Versus Culprit-Vessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock

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.

Impact of in-Hospital Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Recovery on Long-Term Outcomes in Patients Who Underwent Impella Support for HR PCI or Cardiogenic Shock: A Sub-Analysis from the IMP-IT Registry

(1) Background: Percutaneous left ventricle assist devices (pLVADs) demonstrated an improvement in mid-term clinical outcomes in selected patients with severely depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. However, the prognostic impact of in-hospital LVEF recovery is unclear. Accordingly, the present sub-analysis aims to evaluate the impact of LVEF recovery in both cardiogenic shock (CS) and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR PCI) supported with pLVADs in the IMP-IT registry. (2) Methods: A total of 279 patients (116 patients in CS and 163 patients in HR PCI) treated with Impella 2.5 or CP in the IMP-IT registry were included in this analysis, after excluding those who died while in the hospital or with missing data on LVEF recovery. The primary study objective was a composite of all-cause death, rehospitalisation for heart failure, left ventricle assist device (LVAD) implantation, or heart transplantation (HT), overall referred to as the major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year. The study aimed to evaluate the impact of in-hospital LVEF recovery on the primary study objective in patients treated with Impella for HR PCI and CS, respectively. (3) Results: The mean in-hospital change in LVEF was 10 ± 1% (p < 0.001) in the CS cohort and 3 ± 7% (p < 0.001) in the HR PCI group, achieved by 44% and 40% of patients, respectively. In the CS group, patients with less than 10% in-hospital LVEF recovery experienced higher rates of MACE at 1 year of follow-up (FU) (51% vs. 21%, HR 3.8, CI 1.7-8.4, p < 0.01). After multivariate analysis, LVEF recovery was the main independent protective factor for MACE at FU (HR 0.23, CI 0.08-0.64, p = 0.02). In the HR PCI group, LVEF recovery (>3%) was not associated with lower MACE at multivariable analysis (HR 0.73, CI 0.31-1.72, p = 0.17). Conversely, the completeness of revascularisation was found to be a protective factor for MACE (HR 0.11, CI 0.02-0.62, p = 0.02) (4) Conclusions: Significant LVEF recovery was associated with improved outcomes in CS patients treated with PCI during mechanical circulatory support with Impella, whereas complete revascularisation showed a significant clinical relevance in HR PCI.

Culprit-Only Versus Immediate Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicating Advanced Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Venoarterial-Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Background Despite the benefit of culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the CULPRIT-SHOCK (Culprit Lesion Only PCI Versus Multi-vessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock) trial, the optimal revascularization strategy for refractory cardiogenic shock (CS) requiring mechanical circulatory support devices remains controversial. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between the culprit-only and immediate multivessel PCI strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by CS who underwent venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation before revascularization. Methods and Results This study included patient-pooled data from the RESCUE (Retrospective and Prospective Observational Study to Investigate Clinical Outcomes and Efficacy of Left Ventricular Assist Devices for Korean Patients With Cardiogenic Shock) and SMC-ECMO (Samsung Medical Center-Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation) registries. A total of 315 patients with acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease who underwent venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation before revascularization attributable to refractory CS were included in this analysis. The study population was classified into culprit-only versus immediate multivessel PCI according to nonculprit lesion treatment strategies. The primary end point was 30-day mortality or renal-replacement therapy, and the key secondary end point was 12-month follow-up mortality. Among the study population, 175 (55.6%) underwent culprit-only PCI and 140 (44.4%) underwent immediate multivessel PCI. Compared with culprit-only PCI, immediate multivessel PCI was associated with significantly lower risks of 30-day mortality or renal-replacement therapy (68.0% versus 54.3%; P=0.018) and all-cause mortality during 12 months of follow-up (59.5% versus 47.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.689 [95% CI, 0.506-0.939]; P=0.018) in patients with acute myocardial infarction and CS who underwent venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation before revascularization. These results were also consistent in the 99 pairs of propensity score-matched population (60.6% versus 43.6%; HR, 0.622 [95% CI, 0.420-0.922]; P=0.018). Conclusions Among patients with acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease complicated by advanced CS requiring venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation before revascularization, immediate multivessel PCI was associated with lower incidences of 30-day mortality or renal replacement therapy and 12-month follow-up mortality, compared with culprit-only PCI. Registration Information clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02985008.

What Promotes Acute Kidney Injury in Patients with Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease-Contrast Media, Hydration Status or Something Else?

Multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) is found in approximately 50% of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Although we have data showing the benefits of revascularization of significant non-culprit coronary lesions in patients with AMI, the optimal timing of angioplasty remains unclear. The most common reason for postponing subsequent percutaneous treatment is the fear of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI). Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in patients with AMI undergoing PCI, and its etiology appears to be complex and incompletely understood. In this review, we discuss the definition, pathophysiology and risk factors of AKI in patients with AMI undergoing PCI. We present the impact of AKI on the course of hospitalization and distant prognosis of patients with AMI. Special attention was paid to the phenomenon of AKI in patients undergoing multivessel revascularization. We analyze the correlation between increased exposure to contrast medium (CM) and the risk of AKI in patients with AMI to provide information useful in the decision-making process about the optimal timing of revascularization of non-culprit lesions. In addition, we present diagnostic tools in the form of new biomarkers of AKI and discuss ways to prevent and mitigate the course of AKI.

Multivessel vs. culprit-vessel only percutaneous coronary interventions in acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized and retrospective studies

AIMS

Studies comparing outcomes of multivessel (MV) vs. culprit-vessel (CV) only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during index cardiac catheterization in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiogenic shock (CS) have reported conflicting results. In this systematic review we aim to investigate outcomes with MV vs. CV-only revascularization strategies in patients with acute MI and CS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PubMed, Google Scholar, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were queried for studies comparing MV vs. CV PCI in patients with acute MI and CS. Data were extracted and pooled by means of random effects model. Primary outcome was early all-cause mortality (up to 30 days), while the secondary outcomes included late all-cause mortality (mean, 11.4 months), stroke, new renal replacement therapy, reinfarction, repeat revascularization, and bleeding. Pooled odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and number needed to harm (NNH) were calculated. A total of 16 studies enrolling 75  431 patients were included. The MV PCI was associated with higher risk of early mortality [OR 1.17, 95% CI (1.00-1.35); P = 0.04; NNH = 62], stroke [1.15 (1.03-1.29); P = 0.01; NNH = 351], and new renal replacement therapy [1.33 (1.06-1.67); P = 0.01; NNH = 61]; and with lower risk of repeat revascularization [0.61 (0.41-0.89); P = 0.01] when compared with CV PCI. No significant difference was observed in late-term mortality [1.02 (0.84-1.25); P = 0.84], risk of reinfarction [1.13 (0.94-1.35); P = 0.18], or bleeding [1.21 (0.94-1.55); P = 0.13] between groups.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with acute MI and CS, MV PCI during index cardiac catheterization was associated with higher risk of early mortality, stroke, and renal replacement therapy.

When to Achieve Complete Revascularization in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition frequently encountered in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Despite prompt revascularization, in particular, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and therapeutic and technological advances, the mortality rate for patients with CS related to AMI remains unacceptably high. Differently form a hemodynamically stable setting, a culprit lesion-only (CLO) revascularization strategy is currently suggested for AMI–CS patients, based on the results of recent randomized evidence burdened by several limitations and conflicting results from non-randomized studies. Furthermore, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have emerged as a key therapeutic option in CS, especially in the case of their early implantation without delaying revascularization and before irreversible organ damage has occurred. We provide an in-depth review of the current evidence on optimal revascularization strategies of multivessel CAD in infarct-related CS, assessing the role of different types of MCS devices and highlighting the importance of shock teams and medical care system networks to effectively impact on clinical outcomes.

The Use of Mechanical Circulatory Assist Devices for ACS Patients with Cardiogenic Shock and High-Risk PCI

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There has been a significant expansion of the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices for patient with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) with cardiogenic shock (CS) and in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous interventions (PCI). The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the indications and outcomes of these devices in high-risk cardiac patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Early revascularization of the culprit-lesion is the immediate goal in ACS patients with CS and the use of pulmonary artery catheters has been associated with improved outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock. The MCS devices that are used for myocardial support include the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), the left ventricle (LV) to aorta pumps, left atrium (LA) to arterial pumps, and right atrial (RA) to arterial pumps. This review provides an overview on the use of these devices in patients with ACS and CS and those undergoing high-risk PCI. Attention is focused on the IABP, the Impella (LV-aorta pump), the TandemHeart (LA-arterial pump), and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (RA-arterial pump). The indications, evidence, and complications of each device are reviewed. Each device varies in its physiological effect on native heart function, complexity in insertion, and complications. The use of MCS devices for high-risk PCI and CS has increased in recent years and have demonstrated efficacy in supporting a vulnerable myocardium. Although recommendations can be made for use of each device in certain clinical scenarios, further evidence through registries and clinical trials is necessary to guide appropriate device utilization.

Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock Interventional Approach to Management in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories

Despite advances in early reperfusion and a technologic renaissance in the space of Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS), Cardiogenic Shock (CS) remains the leading cause of in-hospital mortality following Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI). Given the challenges inherent to conducting adequately powered randomized controlled trials in this time-sensitive, hemodynamically complex, and highly lethal syndrome, treatment recommendations have been derived from AMI patients without shock. In this review, we aimed to (1) examine the pathophysiology and the new classification system for CS; (2) provide a comprehensive, evidence-based review for best practices for interventional management of AMI-CS in the cardiac catheterization laboratory; and (3) highlight the concept of how frailty and geriatric syndromes can be integrated into the decision process and where medical futility lies in the spectrum of AMI-CS care. Management strategies in the cardiac catheterization laboratory for CS include optimal vascular access, periprocedural antithrombotic therapy, culprit lesion versus multi-vessel revascularization, selective utilization of hemodynamic MCS tailored to individual shock hemometabolic profiles, and management of cardiac arrest. Efforts to advance clinical evidence for patients with CS should be concentrated on (1) the coordination of multi-center registries; (2) development of pragmatic clinical trials designed to evaluate innovative therapies; (3) establishment of multidisciplinary care models that will inform quality care and improve clinical outcomes.

Management of cardiogenic shock

Despite the rapidly evolving evidence base in modern cardiology, progress in the area of cardiogenic shock remains slow, with short-term mortality still reaching 40-50%, relatively unchanged in recent years. Despite advances with an increase in the number of clinical trials taking place in this admittedly difficult-to-study area, the evidence base on which we make day-to-day decisions in clinical practice remains relatively sparse. With only definitive evidence for early revascularisation and the relative ineffectiveness of intra-aortic balloon pumping, most aspects of patient management are based on expert consensus, rather than randomised controlled trials. This updated 2020 review will outline the management of CS mainly after acute myocardial infarction with major focus on state-of-the-art treatment based on randomised clinical trials or matched comparisons if available.

Complete Revascularisation in Impella-Supported Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock Patients Is Associated With Improved Mortality

Background: Acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) still has high likelihood of in-hospital mortality. The only trial evidence currently available for the intra-aortic balloon pump showed no benefit of its routine use in AMI-CS. While a potential benefit of complete revascularisation has been suggested in urgent revascularisation, the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial demonstrated no benefit of multivessel compared to culprit-lesion only revascularisation in AMI-CS. However, mechanical circulatory support was only used in a minority of patients. Objectives: We hypothesised that more complete revascularisation facilitated by Impella support is related to lower mortality in AMI-CS patients. Methods: We analysed data from 202 consecutive Impella-treated AMI-CS patients at four European high-volume shock centres (age 66 ± 11 years, 83% male). Forty-seven percentage (n = 94) had cardiac arrest before Impella implantation. Revascularisation was categorised as incomplete if residual SYNTAX-score (rS) was >8. Results: Overall 30-day mortality was 47%. Mortality was higher when Impella was implanted post-PCI (Impella-post-PCI: 57%, Impella-pre-PCI: 38%, p = 0.0053) and if revascularisation was incomplete (rS ≤ 8: 37%, rS > 8: 56%, p = 0.0099). Patients with both pre-PCI Impella implantation and complete revascularisation had significantly lower mortality (33%) than those with incomplete revascularisation and implantation post PCI (72%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our retrospective analysis suggests that complete revascularisation supported by an Impella microaxial pump implanted prior to PCI is associated with lower mortality than incomplete revascularisation in patients with AMI-CS.

Management of Cardiogenic Shock in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction

Acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Early mechanical revascularization improves survival, and development of STEMI systems of care has increased the utilization of revascularization in AMI-CS from 19% in 2001 to 60% in 2014. Mechanical circulatory support devices are increasingly used to support and prevent hemodynamic collapse. These devices provide different levels of univentricular and biventricular support, have different mechanisms of actions, and provide different physiologic effects. Herein, the authors review the definition, incidence, pathophysiology, and treatment of AMI-CS.

Multivessel Versus Culprit-Vessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare in-hospital outcomes and long-term mortality of multivessel versus culprit vessel-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), multivessel disease (MVD) and cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefits of complete revascularization in patients with NSTEMI, MVD, and cardiogenic shock remain uncertain.

METHODS

Among 25,324 patients included in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry from July 2009 to March 2018, the rates of in-hospital procedural outcomes were compared between those undergoing multivessel PCI and those undergoing culprit vessel-only PCI after 1:1 propensity score matching. Among patients aged ≥65 years matched to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services database, long-term mortality was compared using proportional hazards analysis.

RESULTS

Multivessel PCI was performed in 9,791 patients (38.7%), which increased from 32.2% in 2010 to 44.2% in 2017 (p for trend <0.001). After 1:1 propensity matching (n = 7,864 in each group), those undergoing multivessel PCI had a 3.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0% to 5.0%) lower absolute rate of in-hospital mortality (30.9% vs. 34.4%; p < 0.001; odds ratio [OR]: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.91), but a higher risk for bleeding (13.2% vs. 10.8%; p < 0.001; OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.40) and new requirement for dialysis (5.7% vs. 4.6%; p = 0.001; OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.46). Among those surviving to discharge, all-cause mortality was similar through 7 years (conditional hazard ratio: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.03; p = 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 40% of patients with NSTEMI with MVD and cardiogenic shock underwent multivessel PCI, which was associated with lower in-hospital mortality but greater peri-procedural complications. Among those surviving to discharge, multivessel PCI did not confer additional long-term mortality benefit.

Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Mechanical circulatory support devices are increasingly used for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. These devices provide different levels of univentricular and biventricular support, have different mechanisms of actions, and provide different physiologic effects. Institutions require expert teams to safely implant and manage these devices. This article reviews the mechanism of action, physiologic effects, and data as they relate to the utilization of these devices.

A Standardized and Comprehensive Approach to the Management of Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock is a hemodynamically complex syndrome characterized by a low cardiac output that often culminates in multiorgan system failure and death. Despite recent advances, clinical outcomes remain poor, with mortality rates exceeding 40%. In the absence of adequately powered randomized controlled trials to guide therapy, best practices for shock management remain nonuniform. Emerging data from North American registries, however, support the use of standardized protocols focused on rapid diagnosis, early intervention, ongoing hemodynamic assessment, and multidisciplinary longitudinal care. In this review, the authors examine the pathophysiology and phenotypes of cardiogenic shock, benefits and limitations of current therapies, and they propose a standardized and team-based treatment algorithm. Lastly, they discuss future research opportunities to address current gaps in clinical knowledge.

Complete versus incomplete coronary revascularization: definitions, assessment and outcomes

Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Selected patients with obstructive coronary artery disease benefit from revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Many (but not all) studies have demonstrated increased survival and greater freedom from adverse cardiovascular events after complete revascularization (CR) than after incomplete revascularization (ICR) in patients with multivessel disease. However, achieving CR after PCI or CABG surgery might not be feasible owing to patient comorbidities, anatomical factors, and technical or procedural considerations. These factors also mean that comparisons between CR and ICR are subject to multiple confounders and are difficult to understand or apply to real-world clinical practice. In this Review, we summarize and critically appraise the evidence linking various types of ICR to adverse outcomes in patients with multivessel disease and stable ischaemic heart disease, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, with or without cardiogenic shock. In addition, we provide practical recommendations for revascularization in patients with high-risk multivessel disease to optimize their long-term clinical outcomes and identify areas requiring future clinical investigation.