The medical treatment of cardiogenic shock.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. CS presentation and management in the current era have been widely depicted in epidemiological studies. Its treatment is codified and relies on medical care and extracorporeal life support (ECLS) in the bridge to recovery, chronic mechanical device therapy, or transplantation. Recent improvements have changed the landscape of CS. The present analysis aims to review current medical treatments of CS in light of recent literature, including addressing excitation-contraction coupling and specific physiology on applied hemodynamics. Inotropism, vasopressor use, and immunomodulation are discussed as pre-clinical and clinical studies have focused on new therapeutic options to improve patient outcomes. Certain underlying conditions of CS, such as hypertrophic or Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, warrant specifically tailored management that will be overviewed in this review.

Myocardial Infarction incidence during national lockdown in two French provinces unevenly affected by COVID-19 outbreak: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: A reduction of admission for MI has been reported in most countries affected by COVID-19. No clear explanation has been provided. METHODS: To report the incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) admission during COVID-19 pandemic and in particular during national lockdown in two unequally affected French provinces (10-million inhabitants) with a different media strategy, and to describe the magnitude of MI incidence changes relative to the incidence of COVID-19-related deaths. A longitudinal study to collect all MIs from January 1 until May 17, 2020 (study period) and from the identical time period in 2019 (control period) was conducted in all centers with PCI-facilities in northern "Hauts-de-France" province and western "Pays-de-la-Loire" Province. The incidence of COVID-19 fatalities was also collected. FINDINGS: In "Hauts-de-France", during lockdown (March 18-May 10), 1500 COVID-19-related deaths were observed. A 23% decrease in MI-IR (IRR=0.77;95%CI:0.71-0.84, p<0.001) was observed for a loss of 272 MIs (95%CI:-363,-181), representing 18% of COVID-19-related deaths. In "Pays-de-la-Loire", 382 COVID-19-related deaths were observed. A 19% decrease in MI-IR (IRR=0.81; 95%CI=0.73-0.90, p<0.001) was observed for a loss of 138 MIs (95%CI:-210,-66), representing 36% of COVID-19-related deaths. While in "Hauts-de-France" the MI decline started before lockdown and recovered 3 weeks before its end, in "Pays-de-la-Loire", it started after lockdown and recovered only by its end. In-hospital mortality of MI patients was increased during lockdown in both provinces (5.0% vs 3.4%, p=0.02). INTERPRETATION: It highlights one of the potential collateral damages of COVID-19 outbreak on cardiovascular health with a dramatic reduction of MI incidence. It advocates for a careful and weighted communication strategy in pandemic crises. FUNDING: The study was conducted without external funding.

Balloon aortic valvuloplasty for severe aortic stenosis before urgent non-cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) has been proposed as a therapeutic option in patients suffering from severe aortic stenosis (SAS) who need urgent non-cardiac surgery (NCS). Whether this strategy is better than medical therapy in this very specific population is unknown. AIMS: We aimed to evaluate the clinical benefit of an invasive strategy (IS) with preoperative BAV in patients with SAS requiring urgent NCS. METHODS: From 2011 to 2019, a registry conducted in two centres included 133 patients with SAS undergoing urgent NCS, of whom 93 underwent preoperative BAV (IS) and 40 a conservative strategy (CS) without BAV. All analyses were adjusted for confounding using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) (10 clinical and anatomical variables). RESULTS: The primary outcome was MACE at one-month follow-up after NCS including mortality, heart failure, and other cardiovascular outcomes. In patients managed conservatively, occurrence of MACE was 20.0% (n=8) and death was 10.0% (n=4) at 1 month. In patients undergoing BAV, the occurrence of MACE was 20.4% (n=19) and death was 5.4% (n=5) at 1 month. Among patients undergoing conservative management, all events were observed after NCS while, in patients undergoing BAV, 12.9% (n=12) had events between BAV and NCS including 3 deaths, and 7.5% (n=7) had events after NCS including 2 deaths. In IPTW propensity analyses, the incidence of the primary outcome (20.4% vs 20.0%; OR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.38-2.29) and three-month survival (89.2% vs 90.0%; IPTW-adjusted HR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.31-2.60) were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with SAS managed conservatively before urgent NCS are at high risk of events. A systematic invasive strategy using BAV does not provide a significant improvement in clinical outcome.

Feasibility and safety of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation performed with a percutaneous coronary intervention-like approach.

BACKGROUND: Transfemoral percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) is a safe, reproducible and established procedure, mainly performed under local anaesthesia, which is mostly administered and monitored by a dedicated anaesthesia team (regular approach). Our centre has developed a standardized pathway of care, and eligible patients are selected for a minimalist TF-TAVI, entirely managed by operators without the presence of the anaesthesia team in the operating room, like most interventional coronary procedures ("percutaneous coronary intervention-like" approach [PCI approach]). AIM: To compare the safety and efficacy of TF-TAVI performed with the PCI approach versus the regular approach. METHODS: The analysis population comprised all patients who underwent TF-TAVI with the PCI or regular approach in our institution from November 2016 to July 2019. The two co-primary endpoints were early safety composite and early efficacy composite at 30days as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2. The PCI (n=137) and Regular (n=221) approaches were compared using the propensity score based method of inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: No differences were observed after comparison of TAVI performed with the PCI or regular approach regarding the composite safety endpoint (7.3% vs. 11.3%; odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 1.07; P=0.086) or the composite efficacy endpoint (4.4% vs. 6.3%; odds ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.41 to 1.49; P=0.45). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the efficacy and safety of TF-TAVI entirely managed by a PCI approach for selected patients are not different to those when TF-TAVI is performed with the attendance of a full anaesthesia care team. The PCI approach appears to be a safe and efficient clinical pathway, providing an appropriate and rational utilization of anaesthesiology resources, and could be used for the majority of TF-TAVI procedures.