Advances in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock.

OBJECTIVES: To review a contemporary approach to the management of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). DATA SOURCES: We reviewed salient medical literature regarding CS. STUDY SELECTION: We included professional society scientific statements and clinical studies examining outcomes in patients with CS, with a focus on randomized clinical trials. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted salient study results and scientific statement recommendations regarding the management of CS. DATA SYNTHESIS: Professional society recommendations were integrated with evaluated studies. CONCLUSIONS: CS results in short-term mortality exceeding 30% despite standard therapy. While acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been the focus of most CS research, heart failure-related CS now predominates at many centers. CS can present with a wide spectrum of shock severity, including patients who are normotensive despite ongoing hypoperfusion. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention Shock Classification categorizes patients with or at risk of CS according to shock severity, which predicts mortality. The CS population includes a heterogeneous mix of phenotypes defined by ventricular function, hemodynamic profile, biomarkers, and other clinical variables. Integrating the shock severity and CS phenotype with nonmodifiable risk factors for mortality can guide clinical decision-making and prognostication. Identifying and treating the cause of CS is crucial for success, including early culprit vessel revascularization for AMI. Vasopressors and inotropes titrated to restore arterial pressure and perfusion are the cornerstone of initial medical therapy for CS. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is indicated for appropriately selected patients as a bridge to recovery, decision, durable MCS, or heart transplant. Randomized controlled trials have not demonstrated better survival with the routine use of temporary MCS in patients with CS. Accordingly, a multidisciplinary team-based approach should be used to tailor the type of hemodynamic support to each individual CS patient's needs based on shock severity, phenotype, and exit strategy.

Guidelines for the Management of Adult Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in the ICU: Neurology, Peri-Transplant Medicine, Infectious Disease, and Gastroenterology Considerations.

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for adults with acute liver failure (ALF) or acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) in the ICU. DESIGN: The guideline panel comprised 27 members with expertise in aspects of care of the critically ill patient with liver failure or methodology. We adhered to the Society of Critical Care Medicine standard operating procedures manual and conflict-of-interest policy. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the panel, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development. INTERVENTIONS: In part 2 of this guideline, the panel was divided into four subgroups: neurology, peri-transplant, infectious diseases, and gastrointestinal groups. We developed and selected Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) questions according to importance to patients and practicing clinicians. For each PICO question, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis where applicable. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence to decision framework to facilitate recommendations formulation as strong or conditional. We followed strict criteria to formulate best practice statements. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We report 28 recommendations (from 31 PICO questions) on the management ALF and ACLF in the ICU. Overall, five were strong recommendations, 21 were conditional recommendations, two were best-practice statements, and we were unable to issue a recommendation for five questions due to insufficient evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary, international experts formulated evidence-based recommendations for the management ALF and ACLF patients in the ICU, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on low quality and indirect evidence.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Outcomes and Predictors of Mortality Among Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the causes of critical illness and determinants of prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF) admitted to the modern cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). We sought to describe the epidemiology and outcomes of patients with HF admitted to the contemporary CICU. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective cohort analysis of Mayo Clinic CICU patients admitted with HF from 2007 to 2018 who had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) data. HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF) was defined as a LVEF of less than 50%, and HF with preserved LVEF (HFpEF) as a LVEF of 50% or greater. In-hospital mortality was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. Survival to 1 year was analyzed using a Kaplan-Meier analysis. We included 4012 patients, including 67.8% with HFrEF and 32.2% with HFpEF. Patients with HFrEF and HFpEF were comparable and had equivalent severity of illness. Critical care therapies were used in 59.4%, with a slight preponderance in patients with HFrEF. In-hospital mortality occurred in 12.5% of patients and was similar in HFrEF vs HFpEF. Shock and cardiac arrest were the strongest predictors of adjusted in-hospital mortality, followed by Braden skin score and serum chloride level; patients with HFrEF and HFpEF had similar adjusted mortality rates. The 1-year survival after hospital discharge was 74.5% and was slightly lower for patients with HFpEF. All-cause rehospitalization occurred in 36.6%, and 52.8% of hospital survivors died or were readmitted within 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: CICU patients with HF have a substantial burden of critical illness, high use of critical care therapies, and poor outcomes regardless of LVEF. This finding emphasizes the potential unmet care needs in this cohort. LAY SUMMARY: Patients with heart failure who require admission to the cardiac intensive care unit have high severity of illness and are at significant risk of death during and after hospitalization. These patients often require specialized critical care therapies to treat manifestations of critical illness. Patients who are admitted with cardiac arrest or shock, including those who require mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, are at particularly high risk of death. Patients' left ventricular ejection fraction is not strongly associated with the risk of death when accounting for other major predictors including frailty and laboratory abnormalities.

Prevention of Complications in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Contemporary cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) have an increasing prevalence of noncardiovascular comorbidities and multisystem organ dysfunction. However, little guidance exists to support the development of best-practice principles specific to the CICU. This scientific statement evaluates strategies to avoid the potentially preventable complications encountered within contemporary CICUs, focusing on those that are most applicable to the CICU environment. This scientific statement reviews evidence-based practices derived in non-CICU populations, assesses their relevance to CICU practice, and highlights key knowledge gaps warranting further investigation to attenuate patient risk.

Arterial Stiffness Accelerates Within 1 Year of the Final Menstrual Period: The SWAN Heart Study.

OBJECTIVE: Menopause may augment age-dependent increases in arterial stiffness, with black women having greater progression in midlife compared with white women. We sought to determine whether and when women experience changes in arterial stiffness relative to the final menstrual period (FMP) and whether these changes differ between black and white midlife women. Approach and Results: We evaluated 339 participants from the SWAN (Study of Women's Health Across the Nation) Heart Ancillary study (Study of Women's Health Across the Nation). Women had ≤2 carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (cfPWV) exams over a mean±SD of 2.3±0.5 years of follow-up. Annual percentage changes in cfPWV were estimated in 3 time segments relative to FMP and compared using piecewise linear mixed-effects models. At baseline, women were 51.1±2.8 years of age and 36% black. Annual percentage change (95% CI) in cfPWV varied by time segments: 0.9% (-0.6% to 2.3%) for >1 year before FMP, 7.5% (4.1% to 11.1%) within 1 year of FMP, and -1.0% (-2.8% to 0.8%) for >1 year after FMP. Annual percentage change in cfPWV within 1 year of FMP was significantly greater than the other 2 time segments; P<0.05 for both comparisons. Adjusting for concurrent cardiovascular disease risk factors explained part of the change estimates but did not eliminate the difference. Black women had greater increase in cfPWV compared with white women in the first segment; P for interaction, 0.04. CONCLUSIONS: The interval within 1 year of FMP is a critical period for women when vascular functional alterations occur. These findings underscore the importance of more intensive lifestyle modifications in women transitioning through menopause.

Vasopressor and Inotrope Therapy in Cardiac Critical Care.

Patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) are often in shock and require hemodynamic support. Identifying and addressing the pathophysiology mechanisms operating in an individual patient is crucial to achieving a successful outcome, while initiating circulatory support therapy to restore adequate tissue perfusion. Vasopressors and inotropes are the cornerstone of supportive medical therapy for shock, in addition to fluid resuscitation when indicated. Timely initiation of optimal vasopressor and inotrope therapy is essential for patients with shock, with the ultimate goals of restoring effective tissue perfusion in order to normalize cellular metabolism. Use of vasoactive agents for hemodynamic support of patients with shock should take both arterial pressure and tissue perfusion into account when choosing therapeutic interventions. For most patients with shock, including cardiogenic or septic shock, norepinephrine (NE) is an appropriate choice as a first-line vasopressor titrated to achieve an adequate arterial pressure due to a lower risk of adverse events than other catecholamine vasopressors. If tissue and organ perfusion remain inadequate, an inotrope such as dobutamine may be added to increase cardiac output to a sufficient level that meets tissue demand. Low doses of epinephrine or dopamine may be used for inotropic support, but high doses of these drugs carry an excessive risk of adverse events when used for vasopressor support and should be avoided. When NE alone is inadequate to achieve an adequate arterial pressure, addition of a noncatecholamine vasopressor such as vasopressin or angiotensin-II is reasonable, in addition to rescue therapies that may improve vasopressor responsiveness. In this review, we discuss the pharmacology and evidence-based use of vasopressor and inotrope drugs in critically ill patients, with a focus on the CICU population.

Guidelines for the Management of Adult Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in the ICU: Cardiovascular, Endocrine, Hematologic, Pulmonary, and Renal Considerations.

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for adults with acute or acute on chronic liver failure in the ICU. DESIGN: The guideline panel comprised 29 members with expertise in aspects of care of the critically ill patient with liver failure and/or methodology. The Society of Critical Care Medicine standard operating procedures manual and conflict-of-interest policy were followed throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the panel, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development. SETTING: The panel was divided into nine subgroups: cardiovascular, hematology, pulmonary, renal, endocrine and nutrition, gastrointestinal, infection, perioperative, and neurology. INTERVENTIONS: We developed and selected population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes questions according to importance to patients and practicing clinicians. For each population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes question, we conducted a systematic review aiming to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence whenever applicable, and assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence to decision framework to facilitate recommendations formulation as strong or conditional. We followed strict criteria to formulate best practice statements. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In this article, we report 29 recommendations (from 30 population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes questions) on the management acute or acute on chronic liver failure in the ICU, related to five groups (cardiovascular, hematology, pulmonary, renal, and endocrine). Overall, six were strong recommendations, 19 were conditional recommendations, four were best-practice statements, and in two instances, the panel did not issue a recommendation due to insufficient evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary international experts were able to formulate evidence-based recommendations for the management acute or acute on chronic liver failure in the ICU, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on low-quality indirect evidence.

SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: This document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in April 2019.

BACKGROUND: The outcome of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction has not appreciably changed in the last 30 years despite the development of various percutaneous mechanical circulatory support options. It is clear that there are varying degrees of cardiogenic shock but there is no robust classification scheme to categorize this disease state. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of experts convened by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions was assembled to derive a proposed classification schema for cardiogenic shock. Representatives from cardiology (interventional, advanced heart failure, noninvasive), emergency medicine, critical care, and cardiac nursing all collaborated to develop the proposed schema. RESULTS: A system describing stages of cardiogenic shock from A to E was developed. Stage A is "at risk" for cardiogenic shock, stage B is "beginning" shock, stage C is "classic" cardiogenic shock, stage D is "deteriorating", and E is "extremis". The difference between stages B and C is the presence of hypoperfusion which is present in stages C and higher. Stage D implies that the initial set of interventions chosen have not restored stability and adequate perfusion despite at least 30 minutes of observation and stage E is the patient in extremis, highly unstable, often with cardiovascular collapse. CONCLUSION: This proposed classification system is simple, clinically applicable across the care spectrum from pre-hospital providers to intensive care staff but will require future validation studies to assess its utility and potential prognostic implications.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012." DESIGN: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Mildly elevated lactate levels are associated with microcirculatory flow abnormalities and increased mortality: a microSOAP post hoc analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mildly elevated lactate levels (i.e., 1-2 mmol/L) are increasingly recognized as a prognostic finding in critically ill patients. One of several possible underlying mechanisms, microcirculatory dysfunction, can be assessed at the bedside using sublingual direct in vivo microscopy. We aimed to evaluate the association between relative hyperlactatemia, microcirculatory flow, and outcome. METHODS: This study was a predefined subanalysis of a multicenter international point prevalence study on microcirculatory flow abnormalities, the Microcirculatory Shock Occurrence in Acutely ill Patients (microSOAP). Microcirculatory flow abnormalities were assessed with sidestream dark-field imaging. Abnormal microcirculatory flow was defined as a microvascular flow index (MFI) < 2.6. MFI is a semiquantitative score ranging from 0 (no flow) to 3 (continuous flow). Associations between microcirculatory flow abnormalities, single-spot lactate measurements, and outcome were analyzed. RESULTS: In 338 of 501 patients, lactate levels were available. For this substudy, all 257 patients with lactate levels ≤ 2 mmol/L (median [IQR] 1.04 [0.80-1.40] mmol/L) were included. Crude ICU mortality increased with each lactate quartile. In a multivariable analysis, a lactate level > 1.5 mmol/L was independently associated with a MFI < 2.6 (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.1-5.7, P = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: In a heterogeneous ICU population, a single-spot mildly elevated lactate level (even within the reference range) was independently associated with increased mortality and microvascular flow abnormalities. In vivo microscopy of the microcirculation may be helpful in discriminating between flow- and non-flow-related causes of mildly elevated lactate levels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01179243 . Registered on August 3, 2010.

Emergency management of severe hyperkalemia: Guideline for best practice and opportunities for the future.

Hyperkalemia is a common electrolyte disorder, especially in chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, or heart failure. Hyperkalemia can lead to potentially fatal cardiac dysrhythmias, and it is associated with increased mortality. Determining whether emergency therapy is warranted is largely based on subjective clinical judgment. The Investigator Network Initiative Cardiovascular and Renal Clinical Trialists (INI-CRCT) aimed to evaluate the current knowledge pertaining to the emergency treatment of hyperkalemia. The INI-CRCT developed a treatment algorithm reflecting expert opinion of best practices in the context of current evidence, identified gaps in knowledge, and set priorities for future research. We searched PubMed (to August 4, 2015) for consensus guidelines, reviews, randomized clinical trials, and observational studies, limited to English language but not by publication date. Treatment approaches are based on small studies, anecdotal experience, and traditional practice patterns. The safety and real-world effectiveness of standard therapies remain unproven. Prospective research is needed and should include studies to better characterize the population, define the serum potassium thresholds where life-threatening arrhythmias are imminent, assess the potassium and electrocardiogram response to standard interventions. Randomized, controlled trials are needed to test the safety and efficacy of new potassium binders for the emergency treatment of severe hyperkalemia in hemodynamically stable patients. Existing emergency treatments for severe hyperkalemia are not supported by a compelling body of evidence, and they are used inconsistently across institutions, with potentially significant associated side effects. Further research is needed to fill knowledge gaps, and definitive clinical trials are needed to better define optimal management strategies, and ultimately to improve outcomes in these patients.

International study on microcirculatory shock occurrence in acutely ill patients.

OBJECTIVES: Microcirculatory alterations are associated with adverse outcome in subsets of critically ill patients. The prevalence and significance of microcirculatory alterations in the general ICU population are unknown. We studied the prevalence of microcirculatory alterations in a heterogeneous ICU population and its predictive value in an integrative model of macro- and microcirculatory variables. DESIGN: Multicenter observational point prevalence study. SETTING: The Microcirculatory Shock Occurrence in Acutely ill Patients study was conducted in 36 ICUs worldwide. PATIENTS: A heterogeneous ICU population consisting of 501 patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Demographic, hemodynamic, and laboratory data were collected in all ICU patients who were 18 years old or older. Sublingual Sidestream Dark Field imaging was performed to determine the prevalence of an abnormal capillary microvascular flow index (< 2.6) and its additional value in predicting hospital mortality. In 501 patients with a median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 15 (10-21), a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 5 (2-8), and a hospital mortality of 28.4%, 17% exhibited an abnormal capillary microvascular flow index. Tachycardia (heart rate > 90 beats/min) (odds ratio, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.67-4.39; p < 0.001), mean arterial pressure (odds ratio, 0.979; 95% CI, 0.963-0.996; p = 0.013), vasopressor use (odds ratio, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.11-3.07; p = 0.019), and lactate level more than 1.5 mEq/L (odds ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.28-3.62; p = 0.004) were independent risk factors for hospital mortality, but not abnormal microvascular flow index. In reference to microvascular flow index, a significant interaction was observed with tachycardia. In patients with tachycardia, the presence of an abnormal microvascular flow index was an independent, additive predictor for in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.30-8.06; p = 0.011). This was not true for nontachycardic patients nor for the total group of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In a heterogeneous ICU population, an abnormal microvascular flow index was present in 17% of patients. This was not associated with mortality. However, in patients with tachycardia, an abnormal microvascular flow index was independently associated with an increased risk of hospital death.

Randomized controlled trial of inhaled nitric oxide for the treatment of microcirculatory dysfunction in patients with sepsis*.

OBJECTIVES: Sepsis treatment guidelines recommend macrocirculatory hemodynamic optimization; however, microcirculatory dysfunction is integral to sepsis pathogenesis. We aimed to test the hypothesis that following macrocirculatory optimization, inhaled nitric oxide would improve microcirculation in patients with sepsis and that improved microcirculation would improve lactate clearance and multiple organ dysfunction. DESIGN: Randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Single urban academic medical center. PATIENTS: Adult patients with severe sepsis and systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg despite intravascular volume expansion and/or serum lactate greater than or equal to 4.0 mmol/L. INTERVENTIONS: After achievement of macrocirculatory resuscitation goals, we randomized patients to 6 hours of inhaled nitric oxide (40 ppm) or sham inhaled nitric oxide administration. We administered study drug via a specialized delivery device that concealed treatment allocation so that investigators and clinical staff remained blinded. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We performed sidestream dark-field videomicroscopy of the sublingual microcirculation prior to and 2 hours after study drug initiation. The primary outcome measure was the change in microcirculatory flow index. Secondary outcomes were lactate clearance and change in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. We enrolled 50 patients (28 of 50 [56%] requiring vasopressor agents; 15 of 50 [30%] died). Although inhaled nitric oxide significantly raised plasma nitrite levels, it did not improve microcirculatory flow, lactate clearance, or organ dysfunction. In contrast to previous studies conducted during the earliest phase of resuscitation, we found no association between changes in microcirculatory flow and lactate clearance or organ dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Following macrocirculatory optimization, inhaled nitric oxide at 40 ppm did not augment microcirculatory perfusion in patients with sepsis. Further, we found no association between microcirculatory perfusion and multiple organ dysfunction after initial resuscitation.

Catheterization laboratory activation during mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation: when should we say "No?".

Sudden cardiac arrest is a devastating manifestation of coronary artery disease and a leading cause of death in the western world. Early and effective cardiopulmonary resuscitation is essential for return of spontaneous circulation. If manual compression is ongoing and return of spontaneous circulation has not been achieved, the prognosis is poor, and the logistics of performing cardiac catheterization are forbidding. With the advent of mechanical chest compression, however, this clinical scenario has become much more complex. Coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention, although still cumbersome, has been established as feasible with ongoing mechanical chest compression. This article discusses the strengths and pitfalls of mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation, our experience, and current evidence behind activation of the catheterization laboratory with ongoing mechanical chest compression.