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.

Heart failure related cardiogenic shock: An ISHLT consensus conference content summary.

In recent years, there have been significant advancements in the understanding, risk-stratification, and treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS). Despite improved pharmacologic and device-based therapies for CS, short-term mortality remains as high as 50%. Most recent efforts in research have focused on CS related to acute myocardial infarction, even though heart failure related CS (HF-CS) accounts for >50% of CS cases. There is a paucity of high-quality evidence to support standardized clinical practices in approach to HF-CS. In addition, there is an unmet need to identify disease-specific diagnostic and risk-stratification strategies upon admission, which might ultimately guide the choice of therapies, and thereby improve outcomes and optimize resource allocation. The heterogeneity in defining CS, patient phenotypes, treatment goals and therapies has resulted in difficulty comparing published reports and standardized treatment algorithms. An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) consensus conference was organized to better define, diagnose, and manage HF-CS. There were 54 participants (advanced heart failure and interventional cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, critical care cardiologists, intensivists, pharmacists, and allied health professionals), with vast clinical and published experience in CS, representing 42 centers worldwide. State-of-the-art HF-CS presentations occurred with subsequent breakout sessions planned in an attempt to reach consensus on various issues, including but not limited to models of CS care delivery, patient presentations in HF-CS, and strategies in HF-CS management. This consensus report summarizes the contemporary literature review on HF-CS presented in the first half of the conference (part 1), while the accompanying document (part 2) covers the breakout sessions where the previously agreed upon clinical issues were discussed with an aim to get to a consensus.

Consensus statements from the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus conference: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock.

The last decade has brought tremendous interest in the problem of cardiogenic shock. However, the mortality rate of this syndrome approaches 50%, and other than prompt myocardial revascularization, there have been no treatments proven to improve the survival of these patients. The bulk of studies have been in patients with acute myocardial infarction, and there is little evidence to guide the clinician in those patients with heart failure cardiogenic shock (HF-CS). An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplant consensus conference was organized to better define, diagnose, and manage HF-CS. There were 54 participants (advanced heart failure and interventional cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, critical care cardiologists, intensivists, pharmacists, and allied health professionals) with vast clinical and published experience in CS, representing 42 centers worldwide. This consensus report summarizes the results of a premeeting survey answered by participants and the breakout sessions where predefined clinical issues were discussed to achieve consensus in the absence of robust data. Key issues discussed include systems for CS management, including the "hub-and-spoke" model vs a tier-based network, minimum levels of data to communicate when considering transfer, disciplines that should be involved in a "shock team," goals for mechanical circulatory support device selection, and optimal flow on such devices. Overall, the document provides expert consensus on some important issues facing practitioners managing HF-CS. It is hoped that this will clarify areas where consensus has been reached and stimulate future research and registries to provide insight regarding other crucial knowledge gaps.

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.

Impact of Female Sex on Cardiogenic Shock Outcomes: A Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Report.

BACKGROUND: Studies reporting cardiogenic shock (CS) outcomes in women are scarce. OBJECTIVES: The authors compared survival at discharge among women vs men with CS complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) and heart failure (HF-CS). METHODS: The authors analyzed 5,083 CS patients in the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed with the use of baseline characteristics. Logistic regression was performed for log odds of survival. RESULTS: Among 5,083 patients, 1,522 were women (30%), whose mean age was 61.8 ± 15.8 years. There were 30% women and 29.1% men with AMI-CS (P = 0.03). More women presented with de novo HF-CS compared with men (26.2% vs 19.3%; P < 0.001). Before PSM, differences in baseline characteristics and sex-specific outcomes were seen in the HF-CS cohort, with worse survival at discharge (69.9% vs 74.4%; P = 0.009) and a higher rate of maximum Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions stage E (26% vs 21%; P = 0.04) in women than in men. Women were less likely to receive pulmonary artery catheterization (52.9% vs 54.6%; P < 0.001), heart transplantation (6.5% vs 10.3%; P < 0.001), or left ventricular assist device implantation (7.8% vs 10%; P = 0.01). Regardless of CS etiology, women had more vascular complications (8.8% vs 5.7%; P < 0.001), bleeding (7.1% vs 5.2%; P = 0.01), and limb ischemia (6.8% vs 4.5%; P = 0.001). More vascular complications persisted in women after PSM (10.4% women vs 7.4% men; P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Women with HF-CS had worse outcomes and more vascular complications than men with HF-CS. More studies are needed to identify barriers to advanced therapies, decrease complications, and improve outcomes of women with CS.

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).

HFSA Expert Consensus Statement on the Medical Management of Patients on Durable Mechanical Circulatory Support.

The medical management of patients supported with durable continuous flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support encompasses pharmacological therapies administered in the preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative, and chronic LVAD support stages. As patients live longer on LVAD support, the risks of LVAD-related complications and progression of cardiovascular and other diseases increase. Using existing data from cohort studies, registries, randomized trials, and expert opinion, this Heart Failure Society of America Consensus Document on the Medical Management of Patients on Durable Mechanical Circulatory Support offers best practices on the management of patients on durable mechanical circulatory support, focusing on pharmacological therapies administered to patients on continuous flow LVADs. Although quality data in the LVAD population are few, the use of guideline-directed heart failure medical therapies and the importance of blood pressure management, right ventricular preload and afterload optimization, and antiplatelet and anticoagulation regimens are discussed. Recommended pharmacological regimens used to mitigate or treat common complications encountered during LVAD support, including arrhythmias, vasoplegia, mucocutaneous bleeding, and infectious complications, are addressed. Finally, this document touches on important potential pharmacological interactions from antidepressants and herbal and nutritional supplements of relevance to providers of patients on LVAD support.

Effects of Body Mass Index on Presentation and Outcomes of COVID-19 among Heart Transplant and Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients: A Multi-Institutional Study.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to pose a significant threat to patients receiving advanced heart failure therapies. The current study was undertaken to better understand the relationship between obesity and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or heart transplant. We performed a retrospective review of patients with a heart transplant or LVAD who presented to one of the participating 11 institutions between April 1 and November 30, 2020. Patients were grouped by body mass index (BMI) into obese (BMI ≥ 30 k/m2) and nonobese cohorts (BMI < 30 kg/m2). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate effects of obesity on outcomes of interest. Across all centers, 162 heart transplant and 81 LVAD patients were identified; 54 (33%) and 38 (47%) were obese, respectively. Obese patients tended to have more symptoms at presentation. No differences in rates of hospitalization or ICU admission were noted. Obese patients with LVADs were more likely to require mechanical ventilation (39% vs. 8%, p < 0.05). No differences in renal failure or secondary infection were noted. Mortality was similar among heart transplant patients (11% [obese] vs. 16% [nonobese], p = 0.628) and LVAD patients (12% vs. 15%, p = 1.0). BMI was not associated with increased adjusted odds of mortality, ICU admission, or mechanical ventilation (all p > 0.10). In summary, acute presentations of SARS-CoV-2 among heart transplant and LVAD recipients carry a significantly higher mortality than the general population, although BMI does not appear to impact this. Further studies on the longer-term effects of COVID-19 on this population are warranted.

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.

Multiparametric Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Detects Altered Myocardial Tissue and Function in Heart Transplantation Recipients Monitored for Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is a complication beyond the first-year post-heart transplantation (HTx). We aimed to test the utility of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) to detect functional/structural changes in HTx recipients with CAV. METHODS: Seventy-seven prospectively recruited HTx recipients beyond the first-year post-HTx and 18 healthy controls underwent CMR, including cine imaging of ventricular function and T1- and T2-mapping to assess myocardial tissue changes. Data analysis included quantification of global cardiac function and regional T2, T1 and extracellular volume based on the 16-segment model. International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation criteria was used to adjudicate CAV grade (0-3) based on coronary angiography. RESULTS: The majority of HTx recipients (73%) presented with CAV (1: n = 42, 2/3: n = 14, 0: n = 21). Global and segmental T2 (49.5 ± 3.4 ms vs 50.6 ± 3.4 ms, p < 0.001;16/16 segments) were significantly elevated in CAV-0 compared to controls. When comparing CAV-2/3 to CAV-1, global and segmental T2 were significantly increased (53.6 ± 3.2 ms vs. 50.6 ± 2.9 ms, p < 0.001; 16/16 segments) and left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly decreased (54 ± 9% vs. 59 ± 9%, p < 0.05). No global, structural, or functional differences were seen between CAV-0 and CAV-1. CONCLUSIONS: Transplanted hearts display functional and structural alteration compared to native hearts, even in those without evidence of macrovasculopathy (CAV-0). In addition, CMR tissue parameters were sensitive to changes in CAV-1 vs. 2/3 (mild vs. moderate/severe). Further studies are warranted to evaluate the diagnostic value of CMR for the detection and classification of CAV.

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).

Hyponatremia Is a Powerful Predictor of Poor Prognosis in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients.

Serum sodium is an established prognostic marker in heart failure (HF) patients and is associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. We sought to study the prognostic value of serum sodium in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients and whether hyponatremia reflects worsening HF or an alternative mechanism. We identified HF patients that underwent LVAD implantation between 2008 and 2019. Hyponatremia was defined as Na ≤134 mEq/L at 3 months after implantation. We assessed for differences in hyponatremia before and after LVAD implantation. We also evaluated the association of hyponatremia with all-cause mortality and recurrent HF hospitalizations. There were 342 eligible LVAD patients with a sodium value at 3 months. Among them, there was a significant improvement in serum sodium after LVAD implantation compared to preoperatively (137.2 vs. 134.7 mEq/L, P < 0.0001). Patients with and without hyponatremia had no significant differences in echocardiographic and hemodynamic measurements. In a multivariate analysis, hyponatremia was associated with a markedly increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR 3.69, 95% CI, 1.93-7.05, P < 0.001) when accounting for age, gender, co-morbidities, use of loop diuretics, and B-type natriuretic peptide levels. Hyponatremia was also significantly associated with recurrent HF hospitalizations (HR 2.11, 95% CI, 1.02-4.37, P = 0.04). Hyponatremia in LVAD patients is associated with significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality and recurrent HF hospitalizations. Hyponatremia may be a marker of ongoing neurohormonal activation that is more sensitive than other lab values, echocardiography parameters, and hemodynamic measurements.

Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Right Ventricular Strain in Women and Men Before and After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.

Objective: Adverse events following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation are more common in women than in men, but the impact of gender differences on right ventricular (RV) failure is not well defined. Therefore, we calculated RV strain before and after LVAD implantation in matched groups of men and women to determine if gender differences in RV failure after LVAD might account for the gender differences in overall outcomes. Methods: RV free wall longitudinal strain (FWS) and fractional area change were calculated preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively using speckle-tracking echocardiography analysis. A total of 172 patients (86 women, 86 men) were then propensity score matched (1:1) for comparison. Results: Although women had higher preoperative CHA2DS2-VASc scores and more frequent moderate mitral regurgitation than men (P = 0.018), the preoperative hemodynamic parameters were similar. Preoperative RV-FWS was -6.7% in women and -6.0% in men (P = 0.65). Postoperatively, women had more progression to severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) than men (15% vs 7%, P = 0.06). At 3 months the RV-FWS was -7.7% in women and -7.0% in men (P = 0.59). Postoperative TR was moderate-severe in 20% of women and in 9% of men (P = 0.001). Women had a higher incidence of venous thromboembolism, cardiac arrhythmias, and bleeding compared with men. Women also had higher mortality rates at discharge and 30 days after surgery, but the survival rates at 5 years were similar. Conclusions: RV strain measurements track standard hemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters and confirm that gender differences in outcomes following LVAD implantation are not related to gender differences in RV failure rates.

Continuous Monitoring of Blood Pressure Using a Wrist-Worn Cuffless Device.

BACKGROUND: Measuring an accurate blood pressure (BP) in ambulatory patients is critical for therapeutic decisions. An accurate noninvasive device that measures BP continuously could provide a more comprehensive assessment of BP. The aim of this study was to determine whether the LiveOne device, a cuffless wristband that provides continuous BP measurements, is accurate in comparison to an invasive arterial line (A-line). METHODS: We enrolled hospitalized patients and healthy volunteers in this multicenter study. All patients had an invasive A-line. Waveforms were simultaneously downloaded from the A-line and LiveOne device. The primary outcome was the correlation between the LiveOne device and the A-line for systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP). RESULTS: Thirty-four patients with 233 measurement periods were included. Mean age was 60.7 ± 15.2 years, and 15 (44%) were female. The correlation for SBP was 0.91 and for DBP was 0.85. The mean band error was 0.0 ± 6.9 mm Hg for SBP and 1.2 ± 5.7 mm Hg for DBP. The mean absolute error was 8.2 ± 5.8 mm Hg for SBP and 6.4 ± 3.9 mm Hg for DBP. For SBP, 98% of LiveOne measurements were within 15 mm Hg and for DBP, 92% of LiveOne measurements were within 10 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: The LiveOne device provides continuous, noninvasive BP measurements that are accurate in comparison to A-line measurements. The portability and unobtrusive nature of this device and the ability to provide continuous BP measurements may offer advantages over currently available BP monitors. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Trial Number NCT03919136.

Intermittent Occlusion of the Superior Vena Cava to Improve Hemodynamics in Patients With Acutely Decompensated Heart Failure: The VENUS-HF Early Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Reducing congestion remains a primary target of therapy for acutely decompensated heart failure. The VENUS-HF EFS (VENUS-Heart Failure Early Feasibility Study) is the first clinical trial testing intermittent occlusion of the superior vena cava with the preCARDIA system, a catheter mounted balloon and pump console, to improve decongestion in acutely decompensated heart failure. METHODS: In a multicenter, prospective, single-arm exploratory safety and feasibility trial, 30 patients with acutely decompensated heart failure were assigned to preCARDIA therapy for 12 or 24 hours. The primary safety outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events through 30 days. Secondary end points included technical success defined as successful preCARDIA placement, treatment, and removal and reduction in right atrial and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure. Other efficacy measures included urine output and patient-reported symptoms. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled and assigned to receive the preCARDIA system. Freedom from device- or procedure-related major adverse events was observed in 100% (n=30/30) of patients. The system was successfully placed, activated and removed after 12 (n=6) or 24 hours (n=23) in 97% (n=29/30) of patients. Compared with baseline values, right atrial pressure decreased by 34% (17±4 versus 11±5 mm Hg, P<0.001) and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure decreased by 27% (31±8 versus 22±9 mm Hg, P<0.001). Compared with pretreatment values, urine output and net fluid balance increased by 130% and 156%, respectively, with up to 24 hours of treatment (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We report the first-in-human experience of intermittent superior vena cava occlusion using the preCARDIA system to reduce congestion in acutely decompensated heart failure. PreCARDIA treatment for up to 24 hours was well tolerated without device- or procedure-related serious or major adverse events and associated with reduced filling pressures and increased urine output. These results support future studies characterizing the clinical utility of the preCARDIA system. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03836079.