Cardiogenic Shock From Heart Failure Versus Acute Myocardial Infarction: Clinical Characteristics, Hospital Course, and 1-Year Outcomes

Hemodynamic management of cardiogenic shock in the intensive care unit

Hemodynamic derangements are defining features of cardiogenic shock. Randomized clinical trials have examined the efficacy of various therapeutic interventions, from percutaneous coronary intervention to inotropes and mechanical circulatory support (MCS). However, hemodynamic management in cardiogenic shock has not been well-studied. This State-of-the-Art review will provide a framework for hemodynamic management in cardiogenic shock, including a description of the 4 therapeutic phases from initial 'Rescue' to 'Optimization', 'Stabilization' and 'de-Escalation or Exit therapy' (R-O-S-E), phenotyping and phenotype-guided tailoring of pharmacological and MCS support, to achieve hemodynamic and therapeutic goals. Finally, the premises that form the basis for clinical management and the hypotheses for randomized controlled trials will be discussed, with a view to the future direction of cardiogenic shock.

In-hospital and long-term outcomes of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction versus heart failure

AIMS

This study sought to examine the difference in clinical characteristics, treatment strategy, trends in mortality, and medical costs according to the aetiologies of cardiogenic shock (CS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was a population-based, nationwide, cohort study from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database. All CS adults (≥18 years) were admitted to an intensive care unit from January 2010 to December 2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were cardiac replacement therapy (left ventricular assisted device implantation or heart transplantation), all-cause mortality, ischaemic stroke, rehospitalization for heart failure (HF) during follow-up, and actual in-hospital medical costs. Among 136 092 individuals with CS, 48 704 (29.7%) cases were due to acute myocardial infarction-related CS (AMI-CS), and the remaining 87 388 (71.3%) were due to HF-CS (ischaemic cardiomyopathy [ICM] vs. non-ICM, 49 504 [56.6%] vs. 37 884 [45.4%]). Patients with HF-CS were older, less likely to be male, and less likely to receive mechanical circulatory support, compared to those with AMI-CS. During the 10-year study period, the in-hospital mortality rate decreased, and actual medical costs tended to increase, regardless of CS aetiology. Compared with AMI-CS, HF-CS was associated with higher risks of in-hospital mortality (40.3% vs. 28.5%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.43-1.52), cardiac replacement therapy (adjusted OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.16-2.34), as well as follow-up mortality after successful discharge (19.3% vs. 8.5%; adjusted-hazard ratio 1.54, 95% CI 1.48-1.59). HF-CS had lower medical costs than AMI-CS (adjusted ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.79-0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

With medical advances during the past 10 years, the mortality of CS has decreased significantly, but the mortality of HF-CS remains high. The findings highlight the need for effective treatment strategies for patients with HF-CS.

Influence of tricuspid regurgitation on the prognosis of patients with cardiogenic shock

OBJECTIVE

Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is associated with adverse prognosis in various patient populations. However, data regarding the prognostic impact in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) is limited. The study investigates the prognostic impact of pre-existing TR in patients with CS.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with CS from 2019 to 2021 were included in a monocentric registry. Every patient's medical history, including echocardiographic data, was recorded. The influence of pre-existing TR on prognosis was investigated. Furthermore, Kaplan-Meier analyses based on TR severity were conducted. Statistical analyses comprised univariable t-test, Spearman's correlation, Kaplan-Meier analyses, as well as multivariable Cox proportional regression models. Analyses were stratified by the underlying cause of CS such as acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or the need for mechanical ventilation.

RESULTS

105 patients with CS and pre-existing TR were included. In Kaplan Meier analyses, it could be demonstrated that patients with severe TR (TR III°) had the highest 30-day all-cause mortality compared to mild (TR I°) and moderate TR (TR II°) (44% vs. 52% vs. 77%; log rank p = .054). In the subgroup analyses of CS-patients without AMI, TR II°/TR III° showed a higher all-cause mortality after 30 days compared to TR I° (39% vs. 64%; log rank p = .027). In multivariable Cox regression TR II°/TR III° was associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in CS-patients without AMI (HR = 2.193; 95% CI 1.007-4.774; p = .048). No significant difference could be found in the AMI group. Furthermore, TR II°/III° was linked to an increased 30-day all-cause mortality in non-ventilated CS-patients (6% vs. 50%, log rank p = .015), which, however, could not be confirmed in multivariable Cox regression.

CONCLUSION

The occurrence of pre-existing TR II°/III° was independently related with 30-day all-cause mortality in CS-patients without AMI. However, no prognostic influence was observed in CS-patients with AMI.

Percutaneous Microaxial Ventricular Assist Device Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for Nonacute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the comparative outcomes following percutaneous microaxial ventricular assist devices (pVAD) versus intra-aortic balloon pump for nonacute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock is limited.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We included 704 and 2140 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 to 99 years treated with pVAD and intra-aortic balloon pump, respectively, for nonacute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock from 2016 to 2020. Patients treated using pVAD compared with those treated using intra-aortic balloon pump were more likely to be concurrently treated with mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, and blood transfusions. We computed propensity scores for undergoing pVAD using patient- and hospital-level factors and performed a matching weight analysis. The use of pVAD was associated with higher 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.59-2.33]) but not associated with in-hospital bleeding (adjusted odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.81-1.24]), stroke (adjusted odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.56-1.47]), sepsis (OR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.64-1.28]), and length of hospital stay (adjusted mean difference, +0.4 days [95% CI, -1.4 to +2.3]). A quasi-experimental instrumental variable analysis using the cross-sectional institutional practice preferences showed similar patterns, though not statistically significant (adjusted odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.28-6.89).

CONCLUSIONS

Our investigation using the national sample of Medicare beneficiaries showed that the use of pVAD compared with intra-aortic balloon pump was associated with higher mortality in patients with nonacute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock. Providers should be cautious about the use of pVAD for nonacute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock, while adequately powered high-quality randomized controlled trials are warranted to determine the clinical effects of pVAD.

Clinical Outcomes Among Cardiogenic Shock Patients Supported with High-Capacity Impella Axial Flow Pumps: A Report from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group

BACKGROUND

The Impella 5.0 and 5.5 pumps (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) are large-bore transvalvular micro-axial assist devices used in cardiogenic shock (CS) for patients requiring high-capacity flow. Despite their increasing use, real-world data regarding indications, rates of utilization and clinical outcomes with this therapy are limited.

OBJECTIVES

To examine clinical profiles and outcomes of patients in a contemporary, real-world CS registry of patients who received an Impella 5.0/5.5 alone or in combination with other temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices.

METHODS

The CS Working Group (CSWG) Registry includes patients from 34 US hospitals. For this analysis, data from patients who received an Impella 5.0/5.5 between 2020-2023 were analyzed. Use of Impella 5.0/5.5 with or without additional tMCS therapies, duration of support, adverse events and outcomes at hospital discharge were studied. Adverse events including stroke, limb ischemia, bleeding and hemolysis were not standardized by the registry but reported per individual CSWG Primary Investigator discretion. For those who survived, rates of native heart recovery (NHR) or heart replacement therapy (HRT) including heart transplant (HT), or durable ventricular assist device (VAD) were recorded. We also assessed outcomes based on based on shock etiology (acute myocardial infarction or MI-CS vs. heart failure-related CS or HF-CS).

RESULTS

Among 6,205 patients, 754 received an Impella 5.0/5.5 (12.1%), including 210 MI-CS (27.8%) and 484 HF-CS (64.1%) patients. Impella 5.0/5.5 was used as the sole tMCS device in 32% of patients, while 68% of pts received a combination of tMCS devices. Impella cannulation sites were available for 524/754 (69.4%) of patients, with 93.5% axillary configuration. Survival to hospital discharge for those supported with an Impella 5.0/5.5 was 67%, with 20.4% NHR and 45.5% HRT. Compared to HF-CS, patients with MI-CS supported on Impella 5.0/5.5 had higher in-hospital mortality (45.2% vs 26.2%, p<0.001) and were less likely to receive HRT (22.4% vs 56.6%, p<0.001. For patients receiving a combination of tMCS during hospitalization, this was associated with higher rates of limb ischemia (9% vs. 3%, p<0.01), bleeding (52% vs. 33%, p<0.01), and mortality (38% vs 25%; p<0.001) compared to Impella 5.0/5.5 alone. Among Impella 5.5 recipients, the median duration of pump support was 12.9 days (IQR: 6.8-22.9) and longer in patients bridged to HRT (14 days; IQR: 7.7-28.4).

CONCLUSIONS

In this multi-center cohort of patients with CS, use of Impella 5.0/5.5 was associated with an overall survival of 67.1% and high rates of HRT. Lower adverse event rates were observed when Impella 5.0/5.5 was the sole support device used. Further study is required to determine whether a strategy of early Impella 5.0/5.5 use for CS improves survival.

CONDENSED ABSTRACT

High capacity Impella heart pumps provide up to 5.5 L/min of flow, while axillary surgical cannulation allows for ambulation. Patients with advanced cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction or heart failure requiring temporary mechanical circulatory support may benefit from upfront use of Impella 5.5 to improve overall survival, including native heart recovery or successful bridge to durable left ventricular assist device surgery or heart transplantation, and to reduce adverse event rates.

The management of heart failure cardiogenic shock: an international RAND appropriateness panel

BACKGROUND

Observational data suggest that the subset of patients with heart failure related CS (HF-CS) now predominate critical care admissions for CS. There are no dedicated HF-CS randomised control trials completed to date which reliably inform clinical practice or clinical guidelines. We sought to identify aspects of HF-CS care where both consensus and uncertainty may exist to guide clinical practice and future clinical trial design, with a specific focus on HF-CS due to acute decompensated chronic HF.

METHODS

A 16-person multi-disciplinary panel comprising of international experts was assembled. A modified RAND/University of California, Los Angeles, appropriateness methodology was used. A survey comprising of 34 statements was completed. Participants anonymously rated the appropriateness of each statement on a scale of 1 to 9 (1-3 as inappropriate, 4-6 as uncertain and as 7-9 appropriate).

RESULTS

Of the 34 statements, 20 were rated as appropriate and 14 were rated as inappropriate. Uncertainty existed across all three domains: the initial assessment and management of HF-CS; escalation to temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support (tMCS); and weaning from tMCS in HF-CS. Significant disagreement between experts (deemed present when the disagreement index exceeded 1) was only identified when deliberating the utility of thoracic ultrasound in the immediate management of HF-CS.

CONCLUSION

This study has highlighted several areas of practice where large-scale prospective registries and clinical trials in the HF-CS population are urgently needed to reliably inform clinical practice and the synthesis of future societal HF-CS guidelines.

Outcomes of Patients Transferred to Tertiary Care Centers for Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock: A Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Analysis

BACKGROUND

Consensus recommendations for cardiogenic shock (CS) advise transfer of patients in need of advanced options beyond the capability of "spoke" centers to tertiary/"hub" centers with higher capabilities. However, outcomes associated with such transfers are largely unknown beyond those reported in individual health networks.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze a contemporary, multicenter CS cohort with the aim of comparing characteristics and outcomes of patients between transfer (between spoke and hub centers) and nontransfer cohorts (those primarily admitted to a hub center) for both acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) and heart failure-related HF-CS. We also aim to identify clinical characteristics of the transfer cohort that are associated with in-hospital mortality.

METHODS

The Cardiogenic Shock Working Group (CSWG) registry is a national, multicenter, prospective registry including high-volume (mostly hub) CS centers. Fifteen U.S. sites contributed data for this analysis from 2016-2020.

RESULTS

Of 1890 consecutive CS patients enrolled into the CSWG registry, 1028 (54.4%) patients were transferred. Of these patients, 528 (58.1%) had heart failure-related CS (HF-CS), and 381 (41.9%) had CS related to acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS). Upon arrival to the CSWG site, transfer patients were more likely to be in SCAI stages C and D, when compared to nontransfer patients. Transfer patients had higher mortality rates (37% vs 29%, < 0.001) than nontransfer patients; the differences were driven primarily by the HF-CS cohort. Logistic regression identified increasing age, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, and higher number of vasoactive drugs prior to or within 24 hours after CSWG site transfer as independent predictors of mortality among HF-CS patients. Conversely, pulmonary artery catheter use prior to transfer or within 24 hours of arrival was associated with decreased mortality rates. Among transfer AMI-CS patients, BMI > 28 kg/m2, worsening renal failure, lactate > 3 mg/dL, and increasing numbers of vasoactive drugs were associated with increased mortality rates.

CONCLUSION

More than half of patients with CS managed at high-volume CS centers were transferred from another hospital. Although transfer patients had higher mortality rates than those who were admitted primarily to hub centers, the outcomes and their predictors varied significantly when classified by HF-CS vs AMI-CS.

Sex-related differences in patients presenting with heart failure-related cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUND

Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for a significant proportion of all CS cases. Nevertheless, there is a lack of evidence on sex-related differences in HF-CS, especially regarding use of treatment and mortality risk in women vs. men. This study aimed to investigate potential differences in clinical presentation, use of treatments, and mortality between women and men with HF-CS.

METHODS

In this international observational study, patients with HF-CS (without acute myocardial infarction) from 16 tertiary-care centers in five countries were enrolled between 2010 and 2021. Logistic and Cox regression models were used to assess differences in clinical presentation, use of treatments, and 30-day mortality in women vs. men with HF-CS.

RESULTS

N = 1030 patients with HF-CS were analyzed, of whom 290 (28.2%) were women. Compared to men, women were more likely to be older, less likely to have a known history of heart failure or cardiovascular risk factors, and lower rates of highly depressed left ventricular ejection fraction and renal dysfunction. Nevertheless, CS severity as well as use of treatments were comparable, and female sex was not independently associated with 30-day mortality (53.0% vs. 50.8%; adjusted HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.75-1.19).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large HF-CS registry, sex disparities in risk factors and clinical presentation were observed. Despite these differences, the use of treatments was comparable, and both sexes exhibited similarly high mortality rates. Further research is necessary to evaluate if sex-tailored treatment, accounting for the differences in cardiovascular risk factors and clinical presentation, might improve outcomes in HF-CS.

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.

Medical therapy of cardiogenic shock: Contemporary use of inotropes and vasopressors

Cardiogenic shock is a primary cardiac disorder that results in both clinical and biochemical evidence of tissue hypoperfusion and can lead to multi-organ failure and death depending on its severity. Inadequate cardiac contractility or cardiac power secondary to acute myocardial infarction remains the most frequent cause of cardiogenic shock, although its contribution has declined over the past two decades, compared with other causes. Despite some advances in cardiogenic shock management, this clinical syndrome is still burdened by an extremely high mortality. Its management is based on immediate stabilization of haemodynamic parameters so that further treatment, including mechanical circulatory support and transfer to specialized tertiary care centres, can be accomplished. With these aims, medical therapy, consisting mainly of inotropic drugs and vasopressors, still has a major role. The purpose of this article is to review current evidence on the use of these medications in patients with cardiogenic shock and discuss specific clinical settings with indications to their use.

Concomitant use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and percutaneous microaxial assist device support for cardiogenic shock

Objectives

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) with concomitant percutaneous microaxial left ventricular assist device support is an emerging treatment modality for cardiogenic shock (CS). Survival outcomes by CS etiology with this support strategy have not been well described.

Methods

This study was a retrospective, single-center analysis of patients with CS due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) or decompensated heart failure (ADHF-CS) supported with VA-ECMO with concomitant percutaneous microaxial left ventricular assist device support from December 2020 to January 2023.

Results

A total of 44 patients were included (AMI-CS, n = 20, and ADHF-CS, n = 24). Patients with AMI-CS and ADHF-CS had similar survival at 90 days postdischarge (P = .267) with similar destinations after support (P = .220). Patients with AMI-CS initially supported with VA-ECMO were less likely to survive 90 days postdischarge (P = .038) when compared with other cohorts. Limb ischemia and acute kidney injury occurred more frequently in patients presenting with AMI-CS (P =.013; P = .030). Subanalysis of ADHF-CS patients into acute-on-chronic decompensated HF and de novo HF demonstrated no difference in survival or destination.

Conclusions

VA-ECMO with concomitant percutaneous microaxial left ventricular assist device support can be used to successfully manage patients with CS. There is no difference in survival or destination for AMI-CS and ADHF-CS with this support strategy. AMI-CS patients with initial VA-ECMO support have increased mortality in comparison to other cohorts. Future multicenter studies are required to fully analyze the differences between AMI-CS and ADHF-CS with this support strategy.

Cardiogenic shock etiology and exit strategy impact survival in patients with Impella 5.5

BACKGROUND

Despite historical differences in cardiogenic shock (CS) outcomes by etiology, outcomes by CS etiology have yet to be described in patients supported by temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with Impella 5.5.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to identify differences in survival and post-support destination for these patients in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) CS at a high-volume, tertiary, transplant center.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who received Impella 5.5 at our center from November 2020 to June 2022 was conducted.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients underwent Impella 5.5 implantation for CS; 23 (34%) for AMI and 44 (66%) for ADHF. AMI patients presented with higher SCAI stage, pre-implant lactate, and rate of prior MCS devices, and fewer days from admission to implantation. Survival was lower for AMI patients at 30 days, 90 days, and discharge. No difference in time to all-cause mortality was found when excluding patients receiving transplant. There was no significant difference in complication rates between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

ADHF-CS patients with Impella 5.5 support have a significantly higher rate of survival than patients with AMI-CS. ADHF patients were successfully bridged to heart transplant more often than AMI patients, contributing to increased survival.

Differences between cardiogenic shock related to acute decompensated heart failure and acute myocardial infarction

AIMS

The present analysis from the multicentre prospective Altshock-2 registry aims to better define clinical features, in-hospital course, and management of cardiogenic shock complicating acutely decompensated heart failure (ADHF-CS) as compared with that complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

All patients with AMI-CS or ADHF-CS enrolled in the Altshock-2 registry between March 2020 and February 2022 were selected. The primary objective was the characterization of ADHF-CS patients as compared with AMI-CS. In-hospital length of stay and mortality were secondary endpoints. One-hundred-ninety of the 238 CS patients enrolled in the aforementioned period were considered for the present analysis: 101 AMI-CS (80% ST-elevated myocardial infarction and 20% non-ST-elevated myocardial infarction) and 89 ADHF-CS. As compared with AMI-CS, ADHF-CS patients were younger [63 (IQR 59-76) vs. 67 (IQR 54-73) years, P = 0.01], but presented with higher creatinine [1.6 (IQR 1.0-2.6) vs. 1.2 (IQR 1.0-1.4) mg/dL, P < 0.001], bilirubin [1.3 (IQR 0.9-2.3) vs. 0.6 (IQR 0.4-1.1) mg/dL, P = 0.01], and central venous pressure values [14 mmHg (IQR 8-12) vs. 10 mmHg (IQR 7-14),P = 0.01]. Norepinephrine was the most common catecholamine used in AMI-CS (79.3%), whereas epinephrine was used more commonly in ADHF-CS (65.5%); 75.8% vs. 46.6% received a temporary mechanical support in AMI-CS and ADHF-CS, respectively (P < 0.001). Length of hospital stay was longer in the latter [28 (IQR 13-48) vs. 17 (IQR 9-29) days, P = 0.001]. Heart replacement therapies were more frequently used in the ADHF-CS group (heart transplantation 13.5% vs. 0% and left ventricular assist device 11% vs. 2%, P < 0.01 and 0.01, respectively). In-hospital mortality was 41.1% (38.6% AMI-CS vs. 43.8% ADHF-CS, P = 0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

ADHF-CS is characterized by a higher prevalence of end-organ and biventricular dysfunction at presentation, a longer hospital length of stay, and higher need of heart replacement therapies when compared with AMI-CS. In-hospital mortality was similar between the two aetiologies. Our data warrant development of new management protocols focused on CS aetiology.

Standardization of the Right Heart Catheterization and the Emerging Role of Advanced Hemodynamics in Heart Failure

The accurate assessment of hemodynamics is paramount to providing timely and efficacious care for patients presenting in cardiogenic shock. Recently, the regular use of the pulmonary artery catheter in cardiogenic shock has had a resurgence with emerging data indicating improved survival in the modern era. Optimal multidisciplinary management of advanced heart failure and cardiogenic shock relies on our ability to effectively communicate and understand the complete hemodynamic assessment. Standardization of data acquisition and a renewed focus on the physiological processes, and thresholds driving disease progression, including the coupling ratio and myocardial reserve, are needed to fully understand and interpret the hemodynamic assessment. This State-of-the-Art review discusses best practices in the cardiac catheterization laboratory as well as emerging data on the prognostic role of emerging advanced hemodynamic parameters.

Variation in Hemodynamic Assessment and Interpretation: A Call to Standardize the Right Heart Catheterization

BACKGROUND

Invasive hemodynamic measurement via right heart catheterization has shown divergent data in its role in the treatment of patients with heart failure (HF) and cardiogenic shock. We hypothesized that variation in data acquisition technique and interpretation might contribute to these observations. We sought to assess differences in hemodynamic acquisition and interpretation by operator subspecialty as well as level of experience.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Individual-level responses to how physicians both collect and interpret hemodynamic data at the time of right heart catheterization was solicited via a survey distributed to international professional societies in HF and interventional cardiology. Data were stratified both by operator subspecialty (HF specialists or interventional cardiologists [IC]) and operator experience (early career [≤10 years from training] or late career [>10 years from training]) to determine variations in clinical practice. For the sensitivity analysis, we also look at differences in each subgroup. A total of 261 responses were received. There were 141 clinicians (52%) who self-identified as HF specialists, 99 (38%) identified as IC, and 20 (8%) identified as other. There were 142 early career providers (54%) and late career providers (119 [46%]). When recording hemodynamic values, there was considerable variation in practice patterns, regardless of subspecialty or level of experience for the majority of the intracardiac variables. There was no agreement or mild agreement among HF and IC as to when to record right atrial pressures or pulmonary capillary wedge pressures. HF cardiologists were more likely to routinely measure both Fick and thermodilution cardiac output compared with IC (51% vs 29%, P < .001), something mirrored in early career vs later career cardiologists.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant variation exists between the acquisition and interpretation of right heart catheterization measurements between HF and IC, as well as those early and late in their careers. With the growth of the heart team approach to management of patients in cardiogenic shock, standardization of both assessment and management practices is needed.

Clinical Course of Patients in Cardiogenic Shock Stratified by Phenotype

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) patients remain at 30% to 60% in-hospital mortality despite therapeutic innovations. Heterogeneity of CS has complicated clinical trial design. Recently, 3 distinct CS phenotypes were identified in the CSWG (Cardiogenic Shock Working Group) registry version 1 (V1) and external cohorts: I, "noncongested;" II, "cardiorenal;" and III, "cardiometabolic" shock.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to confirm the external reproducibility of machine learning-based CS phenotypes and to define their clinical course.

METHODS

The authors included 1,890 all-cause CS patients from the CSWG registry version 2. CS phenotypes were identified using the nearest centroids of the initially reported clusters.

RESULTS

Phenotypes were retrospectively identified in 796 patients in version 2. In-hospital mortality rates in phenotypes I, II, III were 23%, 41%, 52%, respectively, comparable to the initially reported 21%, 45%, and 55% in V1. Phenotype-related demographic, hemodynamic, and metabolic features resembled those in V1. In addition, 58.8%, 45.7%, and 51.9% of patients in phenotypes I, II, and III received mechanical circulatory support, respectively (P = 0.013). Receiving mechanical circulatory support was associated with increased mortality in cardiorenal (OR: 1.82 [95% CI: 1.16-2.84]; P = 0.008) but not in noncongested or cardiometabolic CS (OR: 1.26 [95% CI: 0.64-2.47]; P = 0.51 and OR: 1.39 [95% CI: 0.86-2.25]; P = 0.18, respectively). Admission phenotypes II and III and admission Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions stage E were independently associated with increased mortality in multivariable logistic regression compared to noncongested "stage C" CS (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings support the universal applicability of these phenotypes using supervised machine learning. CS phenotypes may inform the design of future clinical trials and enable management algorithms tailored to a specific CS phenotype.

Pulmonary Artery Catheter Use and Risk of In-hospital Death in Heart Failure Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) are increasingly used to guide management decisions in cardiogenic shock (CS). The goal of this study was to determine if PAC use was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality in CS owing to acute heart failure (HF-CS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

This multicenter, retrospective, observational study included patients with CS hospitalized between 2019 and 2021 at 15 US hospitals participating in the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI), accounting for multiple variables at admission. The association between the timing of PAC placement and in-hospital death was also analyzed. A total of 1055 patients with HF-CS were included, of whom 834 (79%) received a PAC during their hospitalization. In-hospital mortality risk for the cohort was 24.7% (n = 261). PAC use was associated with lower adjusted in-hospital mortality risk (22.2% vs 29.8%, OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.94). Similar associations were found across SCAI stages of shock, both at admission and at maximum SCAI stage during hospitalization. Early PAC use (≤6 hours of admission) was observed in 220 PAC recipients (26%) and associated with a lower adjusted risk of in-hospital mortality compared with delayed (≥48 hours) or no PAC use (17.3% vs 27.7%, OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.37-0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

This observational study supports PAC use, because it was associated with decreased in-hospital mortality in HF-CS, especially if performed within 6 hours of hospital admission.

CONDENSED ABSTRACT

An observational study from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry of 1055 patients with HF-CS showed that pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use was associated with a lower adjusted in-hospital mortality risk (22.2% vs 29.8%, odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.94) compared with outcomes in patients managed without PAC. Early PAC use (≤6 hours of admission) was associated with a lower adjusted risk of in-hospital mortality compared with delayed (≥48 hours) or no PAC use (17.3% vs 27.7%, odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.81).

Association between short-term systemic use of glucocorticoids and prognosis of cardiogenic shock: a retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prescription rate of short-term systemic use of glucocorticoids during hospitalization in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), and outcomes related with glucocorticoid use.

METHODS

We extracted patients' information from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV version 2.0 (MIMIC-IV v2.0) database. The primary endpoint was 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary safety endpoints were infection identified by bacterial culture and at least one episode of hyperglycemia after ICU admission. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance baseline characteristics. The difference in cumulative mortality rate between these treated with and without glucocorticoids was assessed by Kaplan-Meier curve with log-rank test. Independent risk factors for endpoints were identified by Cox or Logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1528 patients were enrolled, and one-sixth of these patients received short-term systemic therapy of glucocorticoids during hospitalization. These conditions, including rapid heart rate, the presence of rheumatic disease, chronic pulmonary disease and septic shock, high lactate level, the requirements of mechanical ventilation and continuous renal replacement therapy, were associated with an increase in glucocorticoid administration (all P ≤ 0.024). During a follow-up of 90 days, the cumulative mortality rate in patients treated with glucocorticoids was significantly higher than that in these untreated with glucocorticoids (log-rank test, P < 0.001). Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that glucocorticoid use (hazard ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-1.81; P < 0.001) was independently associated with an increased risk for 90-day all-cause mortality. This result was consistent irrespective of age, gender, the presence of myocardial infarction, acute decompensated heart failure and septic shock, and inotrope therapy, but was more evident in low-risk patients as assessed by ICU scoring systems. Additionally, multivariable Logistic regression analysis showed that glucocorticoid exposure was an independent predictor of hyperglycemia (odds ratio 2.14, 95% CI 1.48-3.10; P < 0.001), but not infection (odds ratio 1.23, 95% CI 0.88-1.73; P = 0.221). After PSM, glucocorticoid therapy was also significantly related with increased risks of 90-day mortality and hyperglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world data showed that short-term systemic use of glucocorticoids was common in CS patients. Importantly, these prescriptions were associated with increased risks of adverse events.

Early Recognition and Risk Stratification in Cardiogenic Shock: Well Begun Is Half Done

Cardiogenic shock is a complex syndrome manifesting with distinct phenotypes depending on the severity of the primary cardiac insult and the underlying status. As long as therapeutic interventions fail to divert its unopposed rapid evolution, poor outcomes will continue challenging health care systems. Thus, early recognition in the emergency setting is a priority, in order to avoid delays in appropriate management and to ensure immediate initial stabilization. Since advanced therapeutic strategies and specialized shock centers may provide beneficial support, it seems that directing patients towards the recently described shock network may improve survival rates. A multidisciplinary approach strategy commands the interconnections between the strategic role of the ED in affiliation with cardiac shock centers. This review outlines critical features of early recognition and initial therapeutic management, as well as the utility of diagnostic tools and risk stratification models regarding the facilitation of patient trajectories through the shock network. Further, it proposes the implementation of precise criteria for shock team activation and the establishment of definite exclusion criteria for streaming the right patient to the right place at the right time.

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).

Management of Cardiogenic Shock Unrelated to Acute Myocardial Infarction

Cardiogenic shock is an extreme manifestation of acute decompensated heart failure. Cardiogenic shock is often caused by-and has traditionally been studied in the setting of-acute myocardial infarction (AMI CS); however, there is increasing incidence and recognition of cardiogenic shock not associated with acute myocardial infarction (non-AMI CS) as a distinct entity. Despite decades of study and technologic advancements, cardiogenic shock mortality remains as high as 50%, regardless of etiology. New approaches to shock phenotyping and classification have emerged, with a focus on appropriately matching patient physiology to a growing list of available interventions. Further study is needed to determine whether these efforts will lead to more nuanced use of mechanical circulatory support and improved patient outcomes, especially in non-AMI CS. In the meantime, models of care incorporating multidisciplinary decision making, such as shock teams, may improve patient selection and outcomes.