Systems of Care in Cardiogenic Shock

Impact of a Cardiogenic Shock Program on Mortality in a Non-Transplant Hospital

INTRODUCTION

Cardiogenic shock is associated with high in-hospital morbidity and mortality. Improvements in this care process could lead to better outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective study of patients with cardiogenic shock compared two periods: no specific program to address cardiogenic shock and implementation of a cardiogenic shock program. This program included the establishment of a multidisciplinary team (shock team), early alert to the transplant hospital, initiation of a ventricular assist extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) program, and extension of continuous care by acute cardiovascular care specialists. The primary objective was to analyse whether there were differences between in-hospital mortality and mortality during follow-up. Predictors of in-hospital mortality were examined as a secondary objective.

RESULTS

A total of 139 patients were enrolled: 69 of them in the previous period and 70 in the cardiogenic shock program period. There was a significant reduction in in-hospital mortality (55.1% vs 37.1%; p=0.03) and mortality during follow-up (62.7% vs 44.6%; p=0.03) in the second period. Diabetes mellitus, ejection fraction, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and implementation of the cardiogenic shock program were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of a comprehensive cardiogenic shock program in a non-transplanting hospital improved in-hospital and follow-up mortality of patients in cardiogenic shock.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and microaxial left ventricular assist device in cardiogenic shock: Choosing the right mechanical circulatory support to improve outcomes

Objective

To evaluate the outcomes of patients supported with Impella (CP/5.0) or venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for cardiogenic shock according to shock phenotype. The primary end point was 30-day survival.

Methods

A retrospective study of patients supported with Impella (CP/5.0) or VA-ECMO between 2010 and 2020 was performed. Patients were grouped according to 1 of 2 shock phenotypes: isolated left ventricular (LV) dysfunction versus biventricular dysfunction or multiple organ failure (MOF). The local practice favors Impella for isolated LV dysfunction and VA-ECMO for biventricular dysfunction or MOF.

Results

Among the 75 patients included, 17 (23%) had isolated LV dysfunction. Patients with biventricular dysfunction or MOF had a greater median lactate level compared with those with isolated LV dysfunction (7.9 [2.9-11.8] vs 3.8 [1.1-5.8] mmol/L, respectively). Among patients with isolated LV dysfunction, 30-day survival was 46% for the Impella group (n = 13) and 75% for VA-ECMO (n = 4). Among patients with biventricular dysfunction or MOF, 30-day survival was 9% for the Impella group (n = 11) and 28% for VA-ECMO (n = 47). Patients supported with Impella 5.0 had better 30-day survival compared with those supported with Impella CP, for both shock phenotypes (83% vs 14% and 14% vs 0%, respectively).

Conclusions

In this small cohort, patients supported with Impella for isolated LV dysfunction and VA-ECMO for biventricular dysfunction or MOF had acceptable survival at 30 days. Patients with biventricular dysfunction or MOF who were supported by Impella had the lowest survival rates. Patients with isolated LV dysfunction who were supported with VA-ECMO had good 30-day survival.

The shock team: a multidisciplinary approach to early patient phenotyping and appropriate care escalation in cardiogenic shock

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a highly morbid condition with mortality remaining greater than 30% despite improved pathophysiologic understanding and access to mechanical circulatory support (MCS). In response, shock teams modeled on successful multidisciplinary care structures for other diseases are being implemented nationwide.

RECENT FINDINGS

Primary data supporting a benefit of shock team implementation on patient outcomes are relatively limited and entirely observational. Four single-center before-and-after studies and one multicenter registry study have demonstrated improved outcomes in patients with CS, potentially driven by increased pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) utilization and earlier (and more appropriate) initiation of MCS. Shock teams are also supported by a growing body of literature recognizing the independent benefit of the interventions they seek to implement, including patient phenotyping with PAC use and an algorithmic approach to CS care. Though debated, MCS is also highly likely to improve CS outcomes when applied appropriately, which further supports a multidisciplinary shock team approach to patient and device selection.

SUMMARY

Shock teams likely improve patient outcomes by facilitating early patient phenotyping and appropriate intervention. Institutions should strongly consider adopting a multidisciplinary shock team approach to CS care, though additional data supporting these interventions are needed.