Data-driven point-of-care risk model in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock

Future for cardiogenic shock research

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss future research themes and study design in cardiogenic shock.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cardiogenic shock research faces multiple challenges, hindering progress in understanding and treating this life-threatening condition. Cardiogenic shock's heterogeneous nature poses challenges in patient selection for clinical trials, potentially leading to variability in treatment responses and outcomes. Ethical considerations arise due to the acuity and severity of the condition, posing challenges in obtaining informed consent and conducting randomized controlled trials where time to treatment is pivotal.

SUMMARY

This review discusses research in this area focusing on the importance of phenotyping patients with cardiogenic shock, based on artificial intelligence, machine learning, and unravel new molecular mechanisms using proteomics and metabolomics. Further, the future research focus in mechanical circulatory support and targeting inflammation is reviewed. Finally, newer trial designs including adaptive platform trials are discussed.

Characterization of the m6A regulators' landscape highlights the clinical significance of acute myocardial infarction

Objective

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a severe cardiovascular disease that threatens human life and health globally. N6-methyladenosine (m6A) governs the fate of RNAs via m6A regulators. Nevertheless, how m6A regulators affect AMI remains to be deciphered. To solve this issue, an integrative analysis of m6A regulators in AMI was conducted.

Methods

We acquired transcriptome profiles (GSE59867, GSE48060) of peripheral blood samples from AMI patients and healthy controls. Key m6A regulators were used for LASSO, and consensus clustering was conducted. Next, the m6A score was also computed. Immune cell infiltration, ferroptosis, and oxidative stress were evaluated. In-vitro and in-vivo experiments were conducted to verify the role of the m6A regulator ALKBH5 in AMI.

Results

Most m6A regulators presented notable expression alterations in circulating cells of AMI patients versus those of controls. Based on key m6A regulators, we established a gene signature and a nomogram for AMI diagnosis and risk prediction. AMI patients were classified into three m6A clusters or gene clusters, respectively, and each cluster possessed the unique properties of m6A modification, immune cell infiltration, ferroptosis, and oxidative stress. Finally, the m6A score was utilized to quantify m6A modification patterns. Therapeutic targeting of ALKBH5 greatly alleviated apoptosis and intracellular ROS in H/R-induced H9C2 cells and NRCMs.

Conclusion

Altogether, our findings highlight the clinical significance of m6A regulators in the diagnosis and risk prediction of AMI and indicate the critical roles of m6A modification in the regulation of immune cell infiltration, ferroptosis, and oxidative stress.

Outcomes of patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock treated with culprit vessel-only versus multivessel primary PCI

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Multivessel primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is still often used in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS). The study aimed to compare the characteristics and prognosis of patients with CS-STEMI and multivessel coronary disease (MVD) treated with culprit vessel-only pPCI or multivessel-pPCI during the initial procedure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From 2016 to 2020, 23,703 primary PCI patients with STEMI were included in a national all-comers registry of cardiovascular interventions. Of them, 1,213 (5.1%) patients had CS and MVD at admission to the hospital. Initially, 921 (75.9%) patients were treated with culprit vessel (CV)-pPCI and 292 (24.1%) with multivessel (MV)-pPCI.

RESULTS

Patients with 3-vessel disease and left main disease had a higher probability of being treated with MV-pPCI than patients with 2-vessel disease and patients without left main disease (28.5% vs. 18.6%; p < 0.001 and 37.7% vs. 20.6%; p < 0.001). Intra-aortic balloon pump, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and other mechanical circulatory support systems were more often used in patients with MV-pPCI. Thirty (30)-day and 1-year all-cause mortality rates were similar in the CV-pPCI and MV-pPCI groups (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77 to 1.32; p = 0.937 and 1.1; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.44; p = 0.477). The presence of 3-vessel disease and the use of ECMO were the strongest adjusted predictors of 30-day and 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data from an extensive all-comers registry suggests that selective use of MV-pPCI does not increase the all-cause mortality rate in patients with CS-STEMI and MVD compared to CV-pPCI.

Impella to Treat Acute Myocardial Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock

Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS), is characterized by critically low cardiac output and decreased myocardial contractility. In this situation, a treatment that unloads the myocardium and restores CO without increasing the myocardial oxygen demand is theoretically appealing. Axial flow pumps offer hemodynamic support without increasing myocardial oxygen consumption. Consequently, the use of axial flow pumps, especially the Impella devices, is increasing. It is likely that the SCAI C patient with predominantly left ventricular failure and without prolonged cardiac arrest is the best candidate for these devices. Registry data suggest that pre-PCI Impella may be advantageous to post-PCI placement. However, several gaps in knowledge exist regarding optimal patient selection, futility criteria, timing, weaning and escalation strategy, and until data from adequately sized randomized trials are available, immediate individual evaluation for mechanical circulatory support by a shock team is warranted when a patient is diagnosed with AMICS.

Predicting mortality in nonsurgical patients before cannulation for veno-arterial extracorporeal life support: Development and validation of the LACT-8 score

OBJECTIVES

We sought to derive and validate a model to predict inpatient mortality after veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (VA-ECLS) based on readily available, precannulation clinical data.

BACKGROUND

Refractory cardiogenic shock supported by VA-ECLS is associated with high morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

VA-ECLS cases at our institution from January 2014 through July 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Exclusion criteria were cannulation: (1) at another institution; (2) for primary surgical indication; or (3) for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Multivariable logistic regression compared those with and without inpatient mortality. Multiple imputation was performed and optimism-adjusted area under the curve (oAUC) values were computed.

RESULTS

VA-ECLS cases from August 2019 through November 2020 were identified as a validation cohort. In the derivation cohort (n = 135), the final model included Lactate (mmol/L), hemoglobin (g/dl; Anemia), Coma (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] < 8) and resusciTATEd cardiac arrest (LACTATE score; oAUC = 0.760). In the validation cohort (n = 30, LACTATE showed similar predictability [AUC = 0.710]). A simplified (LACT-8) score was derived by dichotomizing lactate (>8) and hemoglobin (<8) and summing together the number of components for each patient. LACT-8 performed similarly (derivation, oAUC = 0.724; validation, AUC = 0.725). In the derivation cohort, both scores outperformed SAVE (oAUC = 0.568) and SOFA (oAUC = 0.699) scores. A LACT-8 ≥ 3 had a specificity for mortality of 97.9% and 92.9%, in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The LACT-8 score can predict inpatient mortality prior to before cannulation for VA-ECLS. LACT-8 can be implemented utilizing clinical data without the need for an online calculator.