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.

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 Intensity for the Management of Cardiogenic Shock: Comparison Between STEMI and Non-STEMI.

Background: Cardiogenic shock is a leading cause of mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Objectives: The authors sought to compare clinical characteristics, hospital trajectory, and drug and device use between patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS) and those without (non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock [NSTEMI-CS]). Methods: We analyzed data from 1,110 adult admissions with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) across 17 centers within Cardiogenic Shock Working Group. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. Results: Our study included 1,110 patients with AMI-CS, of which 731 (65.8%) had STEMI-CS and 379 (34.2%) had NSTEMI-CS. Most patients were male (STEMI-CS: 71.6%, NSTEMI-CS: 66.5%) and White (STEMI-CS: 53.8%, NSTEMI-CS: 64.1%). In-hospital mortality was 41% and was similar among patients with STEMI-CS and NSTEMI-CS (43% vs 39%, P = 0.23). Patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest had higher in-hospital mortality in patients with NSTEMI-CS (63% vs 36%, P = 0.006) as compared to patients with STEMI-CS (52% vs 41%, P = 0.16). Similar results were observed for in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with STEMI-CS (63% vs 33%, P < 0.001) and NSTEMI-CS (60% vs 32%, P < 0.001). Only 27% of patients with STEMI-CS and 12% of NSTEMI-CS received both a drug and temporary mechanical circulatory support device during the first 24 hours, which increased to 78% and 61%, respectively, throughout the course of the hospitalization (P < 0.001 for both). Conclusions: Despite increasing use of inotropic and vasoactive support and mechanical circulatory support throughout the hospitalization, both patients with STEMI-CS and NSTEMI-CS remain at increased risk for in-hospital mortality. Randomized controls trials are needed to elucidate whether timing and sequence of escalation of support improves outcomes in patients with AMI-CS.

Criteria for Defining Stages of Cardiogenic Shock Severity.

BACKGROUND: Risk-stratifying patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) is a major unmet need. The recently proposed Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) staging system for CS severity lacks uniform criteria defining each stage. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to test parameters that define SCAI stages and explore their utility as predictors of in-hospital mortality in CS. METHODS: The CS Working Group registry includes patients from 17 hospitals enrolled between 2016 and 2021 and was used to define clinical profiles for CS. We selected parameters of hypotension and hypoperfusion and treatment intensity, confirmed their association with mortality, then defined formal criteria for each stage and tested the association between both baseline and maximum Stage and mortality. RESULTS: Of 3,455 patients, CS was caused by heart failure (52%) or myocardial infarction (32%). Mortality was 35% for the total cohort and higher among patients with myocardial infarction, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and treatment with increasing numbers of drugs and devices. Systolic blood pressure, lactate level, alanine transaminase level, and systemic pH were significantly associated with mortality and used to define each stage. Using these criteria, baseline and maximum stages were significantly associated with mortality (n = 1,890). Lower baseline stage was associated with a higher incidence of stage escalation and a shorter duration of time to reach maximum stage. CONCLUSIONS: We report a novel approach to define SCAI stages and identify a significant association between baseline and maximum stage and mortality. This approach may improve clinical application of the staging system and provides new insight into the trajectory of hospitalized CS patients. (Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Registry [CSWG]; NCT04682483).