Association of Hemometabolic Trajectory and Mortality: Insights From the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Registry.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a hemodynamic syndrome that can progress to systemic metabolic derangements and end-organ dysfunction. Prior studies have reported hemodynamic parameters at the time of admission to be associated with mortality but hemodynamic trajectories in CS have not been well described. We studied the association between hemodynamic profiles and their trajectories and in-hospital mortality in patients with CS due to heart failure (HF-CS) and acute myocardial infarction (MI-CS). Using data from the large multicenter Cardiogenic Shock Working Group (CSWG) registry, we analyzed hemodynamic data obtained at the time of pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) insertion (dataset at baseline) and at PAC removal or death (dataset at final time point). Univariable regression analyses for prediction of in-hospital mortality were conducted for baseline and final hemodynamic values, as well as the interval change (delta-P). Data was further analyzed based on CS etiology and survival status. A total of 2260 patients with PAC data were included (70% male, age 61 ± 14 years, 61% HF-CS, 27% MI-CS). In-hospital mortality was higher in the MI-CS group (40.1%) compared with HF-CS (22.4%, P < .01). In the HF-CS cohort, survivors exhibited lower right atrial pressure (RAP), pulmonary artery pressure (PAP), cardiac output/index (CO/CI), lactate, and higher blood pressure (BP) than nonsurvivors at baseline. In this cohort, during hospitalization, improvement in metabolic (aspartate transaminase, lactate), BP, hemodynamic (RAP, pulmonary artery pulsatility index [PAPi], pulmonary artery compliance for right-sided profile and CO/CI for left-sided profile), had association with survival. In the MI-CS cohort, a lower systolic BP and higher PAP at baseline were associated with odds of death. Improvement in metabolic (lactate), BP, hemodynamic (RAP, PAPi for right-sided profile and CO/CI for left-sided profile) were associated with survival. In a large contemporary CS registry, hemodynamic trajectories had a strong association with short-term outcomes in both cohorts. These findings suggest the clinical importance of timing and monitoring hemodynamic trajectories to tailor management in patients with CS.

Serial Shock Severity Assessment Within 72 Hours After Diagnosis: A Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Report.

BACKGROUND: The Cardiogenic Shock Working Group-modified Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (CSWG-SCAI) staging was developed to risk stratify cardiogenic shock (CS) severity. Data showing progressive changes in SCAI stages and outcomes are limited. OBJECTIVES: We investigated serial changes in CSWG-SCAI stages and outcomes of patients presenting with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (MI-CS) and heart failure-related CS (HF-CS). METHODS: The multicenter CSWG registry was queried. CSWG-SCAI stages were computed at CS diagnosis and 24, 48, and 72 hours. RESULTS: A total of 3,268 patients (57% HF-CS; 27% MI-CS) were included. At CS diagnosis, CSWG-SCAI stage breakdown was 593 (18.1%) stage B, 528 (16.2%) stage C, 1,659 (50.8%) stage D, and 488 (14.9%) noncardiac arrest stage E. At 24 hours, >50% of stages B and C patients worsened, but 86% of stage D patients stayed at stage D. Among stage E patients, 54% improved to stage D and 36% stayed at stage E by 24 hours. Minimal SCAI stage changes occurred beyond 24 hours. SCAI stage trajectories were similar between MI-CS and HF-CS groups. Within 24 hours, unadjusted mortality rates of patients with any SCAI stage worsening or improving were 44.6% and 34.2%, respectively. Patients who presented in or progressed to stage E by 24 hours had the worst prognosis. Survivors had lower lactate than nonsurvivors. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with CS changed SCAI stages within 24 hours from CS diagnosis. Stage B patients were at high risk of worsening shock severity by 24 hours, associated with excess mortality. Early CS recognition and serial assessment may improve risk stratification.

Management of Iron Deficiency in Heart Failure: Practical Considerations and Implementation of Evidence-Based Iron Supplementation.

Iron deficiency (ID) is present in approximately 50% of patients with heart failure (HF) and even higher prevalence rate up to 80% in post-acute HF setting. The current guidelines for HF recommend intravenous (IV) iron replacement in HF with reduced or mildly reduced ejection fraction and ID based on clinical trials showing improvements in quality of life and exercise capacity, and an overall treatment benefit for recurrent HF hospitalization. However, several barriers cause challenges in implementing IV iron supplementation in practice due, in part, to clinician knowledge gaps and limited resource availability to protocolize routine utilization in appropriate patients. Thus, the current review will discuss practical considerations in ID treatment, implementation of evidence-based ID treatment to improve regional health disparities with toolkits, inclusion/exclusion criteria of IV iron supplementation, and clinical controversies in ID treatment, as well as gaps in evidence and questions to be answered.

Practical Guidance for Hemodynamic Assessment by Right Heart Catheterization in Management of Heart Failure.

Heart failure is a clinical syndrome characterized by the inability of the heart to meet the circulatory demands of the body without requiring an increase in intracardiac pressures at rest or with exertion. Hemodynamic parameters can be measured via right heart catheterization, which has an integral role in the full spectrum of heart failure: from ambulatory patients to those in cardiogenic shock, as well as patients being considered for left ventricular device therapy and heart transplantation. Hemodynamic data are critical for prompt recognition of clinical deterioration, assessment of prognosis, and guidance of treatment decisions. This review is a field guide for hemodynamic assessment, troubleshooting, and interpretation for clinicians treating patients with heart failure.

Considerations in the Diagnosis and Management of Pulmonary Hypertension Associated With Left Heart Disease.

Pulmonary hypertension associated with left heart disease (PH-LHD) remains the most common cause of pulmonary hypertension globally. Etiologies include heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction and left-sided valvular heart diseases. Despite the increasing prevalence of PH-LHD, there remains a paucity of knowledge about the hemodynamic definition, diagnosis, treatment modalities, and prognosis among clinicians. Moreover, clinical trials have produced mixed results on the usefulness of pulmonary vasodilator therapies for PH-LHD. In this expert review, we have outlined the critical role of meticulous hemodynamic evaluation and provocative testing for cases of diagnostic uncertainty. Therapeutic strategies-pharmacologic, device-based, and surgical therapies used for managing PH-LHD-are also outlined. PH-LHD in advanced heart failure, and the role of mechanical circulatory support in PH-LHD is briefly explored. An in-depth understanding of PH-LHD by all clinicians is needed for improved recognition and outcomes among patients with PH-LHD.

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. The objective of our study was 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 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 patients 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 5.0/5.5 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 are capable of provide up to 5.5 liter/min of flow while upper body surgical placement 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.

Factors associated with acute limb ischemia in cardiogenic shock and downstream clinical outcomes: Insights from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data depicting the prevalence and ramifications of acute limb ischemia (ALI) among cardiogenic shock (CS) patients. METHODS: We employed data from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group (CSWG), a consortium including 33 sites. We constructed a multi-variable logistic regression to examine the association between clinical factors and ALI, we generated another logistic regression model to ascertain the association of ALI with mortality. RESULTS: There were 7,070 patients with CS and 399 (5.6%) developed ALI. Patients with ALI were more likely to be female (40.4% vs 29.4%) and have peripheral arterial disease (13.8% vs 8.3%). Stratified by maximum society for cardiovascular angiography & intervention (SCAI) shock stage, the rates of ALI were stage B 0.0%, stage C 1.8%, stage D 4.1%, and stage E 10.3%. Factors associated with higher risk for ALI included: peripheral vascular disease OR 2.24 (95% CI: 1.53-3.23; p < 0.01) and ≥2 mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices OR 1.66 (95% CI: 1.24-2.21, p < 0.01). ALI was highest for venous-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) patients (11.6%) or VA-ECMO+ intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP)/Impella CP (16.6%) yet use of distal perfusion catheters was less than 50%. Mortality was 38.0% for CS patients without ALI but 57.4% for CS patients with ALI. ALI was significantly associated with mortality, adjusted OR 1.40 (95% CI 1.01-1.95, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of ALI was 6% among CS patients. Factors most associated with ALI include peripheral vascular disease and multiple MCS devices. The downstream ramifications of ALI were dire with a considerably higher risk of mortality.

Accuracy and consistency of online large language model-based artificial intelligence chat platforms in answering patients' questions about heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a prevalent condition associated with significant morbidity. Patients may have questions that they feel embarrassed to ask or will face delays awaiting responses from their healthcare providers which may impact their health behavior. We aimed to investigate the potential of large language model (LLM) based artificial intelligence (AI) chat platforms in complementing the delivery of patient-centered care. METHODS: Using online patient forums and physician experience, we created 30 questions related to diagnosis, management and prognosis of HF. The questions were posed to two LLM-based AI chat platforms (OpenAI's ChatGPT-3.5 and Google's Bard). Each set of answers was evaluated by two HF experts, independently and blinded to each other, for accuracy (adequacy of content) and consistency of content. RESULTS: ChatGPT provided mostly appropriate answers (27/30, 90%) and showed a high degree of consistency (93%). Bard provided a similar content in its answers and thus was evaluated only for adequacy (23/30, 77%). The two HF experts' grades were concordant in 83% and 67% of the questions for ChatGPT and Bard, respectively. CONCLUSION: LLM-based AI chat platforms demonstrate potential in improving HF education and empowering patients, however, these platforms currently suffer from issues related to factual errors and difficulty with more contemporary recommendations. This inaccurate information may pose serious and life-threatening implications for patients that should be considered and addressed in future research.

Outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis and severely reduced ejection fraction following surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction demonstrate improvement in left ventricular injection fraction (LVEF) after aortic valve replacement (AVR). The timing and magnitude of recovery in patients with very low LVEF (≤ 25%) in surgical or transcatheter AVR is not well studied. OBJECTIVE: Determine clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve repair (SAVR) in the subset of patients with severely reduced EF ≤ 25%. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective study with primary endpoint of LVEF 1-week following either procedure. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and delayed postprocedural LVEF. T-test was used to compare variables and linear regression was used to adjust differences among baseline variables. RESULTS: 83 patients were enrolled (TAVR = 56 and SAVR = 27). TAVR patients were older at the time of procedure (TAVR 77.29 ± 8.69 vs. SAVR 65.41 ± 10.05, p < 0.001). One week post procedure, all patients had improved LVEF after both procedures (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in LVEF between either group (TAVR 33.5 ± 11.77 vs. SAVR 35.3 ± 13.57, p = 0.60). Average LVEF continued to rise and increased by 101% at final follow-up (41.26 ± 13.70). 30-day mortality rates in SAVR and TAVR were similar (7.4% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.91). CONCLUSION: Patients with severe AS and LVEF ≤ 25% have a significant recovery in post-procedural EF following AVR regardless of method. LVEF doubled at two years post-procedure. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality or mean EF recovery between TAVR and SAVR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Indiana University institutional review board granted approval for above study numbered 15,322.

Body Mass Index and Mortality in Cardiogenic Shock.

We explored the association of body mass index (BMI) with mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS). Using the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry, we assessed the impact of BMI on mortality using restricted cubic splines in a multivariable logistic regression model adjusting for age, gender, and race. We also assessed mortality, device use, and complications in BMI categories, defined as underweight (<18.5 kg/m 2 ), normal (18.5-24.9 kg/m 2 ), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m 2 ), obese (30-39.9 kg/m 2 ), and severely obese (>40 kg/m 2 ) using univariable logistic regression models. Our cohort had 3,492 patients with CS (mean age = 62.1 ± 14 years, 69% male), 58.0% HF-related CS (HF-CS), and 27.8% acute myocardial infarction (AMI) related CS. Body mass index was a significant predictor of mortality in multivariable regression using restricted cubic splines ( p < 0.0001, p = 0.194 for nonlinearity). When stratified by categories, patients with healthy weight had lower mortality (29.0%) than obese (35.1%, p = 0.003) or severely obese (36.7%, p = 0.01). In HF-CS cohort, the healthy weight patients had the lowest mortality (21.7%), whereas it was higher in the underweight (37.5%, p = 0.012), obese (29.2%, p = 0.003), and severely obese (29.9%, p = 0.019). There was no difference in mortality among BMI categories in AMI-CS.

Durable ventricular assist device in adult patients with single ventricle: a systematic literature review.

The worldwide experience with mechanical circulatory support in adult patients with single ventricle and Fontan palliation is limited. We aimed to see the outcomes in such patients on durable left ventricular assist device. We systematically reviewed the English language literature found on PubMed and Google Scholar, searching the terms "Fontan," "single ventricle," "ventricular assist device," "LVAD," and "mechanical circulatory support," and selected all individual cases with reported outcomes. We identified 4 patients on pulsatile left ventricular assist device, all of whom were successfully bridged to transplant, and 15 patients on continuous flow LVAD, age 25.9 ± 5.8, predominantly males. Mean time on LVAD support was 718.6 ± 616.5 days, and only 2 patients (13.3%) died. Durable left ventricular assist device support in adult patients with Fontan provides excellent results and should be used more frequently.

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.

Predictors of Survival After Heart Transplant in the New Allocation System: A UNOS Database Analysis.

Clinical predictors of posttransplant graft loss since the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart allocation system change have not been well characterized. Single organ adult heart transplants from the UNOS database were identified (n = 10,252) and divided into a test cohort (n = 6,869, 67%) and validation cohort (n = 3,383, 33%). A Cox regression analysis was performed on the test cohort to identify recipient and donor risk factors for posttransplant graft loss. Based on the risk factors, a score (max 16) was developed to classify patients in the validation cohort into risk groups of low (≤1), mid (2-3), high (≥4) risk. Recipient factors of advanced age, Black race, recipient blood group O, diabetes, etiology of heart failure, renal dysfunction, elevated bilirubin, redo-transplantation, elevated pulmonary artery pressure, transplant with a durable ventricular assist device, or transplant on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or ventilator were associated with more posttransplant graft loss. Donor factors of ischemic time and donor age were also associated with outcomes. One year graft survival for the low-, mid-, high-risk groups was 94%, 91%, and 85%, respectively. In conclusion, easily obtainable clinical characteristics at time of heart transplant can predict posttransplant outcomes in the current era.

Multicenter registry and test bed for extended outpatient hemodynamic monitoring: the hemodynamic frontiers in heart failure (HF2) initiative.

Background: Hemodynamic Frontiers in Heart Failure (HF2) is a multicenter academic research consortium comprised of 14 US institutions with mature remote monitoring programs for ambulatory patients with heart failure (HF). The consortium developed a retrospective and prospective registry of patients implanted with a wireless pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) sensor. Goals/aims: HF2 registry collects demographic, clinical, laboratory, echocardiographic (ECHO), and hemodynamic data from patients with PAP sensors. The aims of HF2 are to advance understanding of HF and to accelerate development of novel diagnostic and therapeutic innovations. Methods: HF2 includes adult patients implanted with a PAP sensor as per FDA indications (New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III HF functional class with a prior hospitalization, or patients with NYHA Class II or brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) elevation without hospitalization) at a HF2 member site between 1/1/19 to present. HF2 registry is maintained at University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC). The registry was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) at all participating institutions with required data use agreements. Institutions report data into the electronic registry database using REDCap, housed at KUMC. Results: This initial data set includes 254 patients implanted from the start of 2019 until May 2023. At time of device implant, the cohort average age is 73 years old, 59.8% are male, 72% have NYHA Class III HF, 40% have left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40%, 35% have LVEF > 50%, mean BNP is 560 pg/ml, mean N-Terminal pro-BNP (NTproBNP) is 5,490 pg/ml, mean creatinine is 1.65 mg/dl. Average baseline hemodynamics at device implant are right atrial pressure (RAP) of 11 mmHg, pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) of 47 mmHg, pulmonary artery diastolic pressure (PADP) 21 mmHg, mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) of 20 mmHg, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) of 19 mmHg, cardiac output (CO) of 5.3 L/min, and cardiac index (CI) of 2.5 L/min/m2. Conclusion: A real-world registry of patients implanted with a PAP sensor enables long-term evaluation of hemodynamic and clinic outcomes in highly-phenotyped ambulatory HF patients, and creates a unique opportunity to validate and test novel diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to HF.