Concomitant use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and percutaneous microaxial assist device support for cardiogenic shock.

Objectives: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) with concomitant percutaneous microaxial left ventricular assist device support is an emerging treatment modality for cardiogenic shock (CS). Survival outcomes by CS etiology with this support strategy have not been well described. Methods: This study was a retrospective, single-center analysis of patients with CS due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) or decompensated heart failure (ADHF-CS) supported with VA-ECMO with concomitant percutaneous microaxial left ventricular assist device support from December 2020 to January 2023. Results: A total of 44 patients were included (AMI-CS, n = 20, and ADHF-CS, n = 24). Patients with AMI-CS and ADHF-CS had similar survival at 90 days postdischarge (P = .267) with similar destinations after support (P = .220). Patients with AMI-CS initially supported with VA-ECMO were less likely to survive 90 days postdischarge (P = .038) when compared with other cohorts. Limb ischemia and acute kidney injury occurred more frequently in patients presenting with AMI-CS (P =.013; P = .030). Subanalysis of ADHF-CS patients into acute-on-chronic decompensated HF and de novo HF demonstrated no difference in survival or destination. Conclusions: VA-ECMO with concomitant percutaneous microaxial left ventricular assist device support can be used to successfully manage patients with CS. There is no difference in survival or destination for AMI-CS and ADHF-CS with this support strategy. AMI-CS patients with initial VA-ECMO support have increased mortality in comparison to other cohorts. Future multicenter studies are required to fully analyze the differences between AMI-CS and ADHF-CS with this support strategy.

Recognizing patients as candidates for temporary mechanical circulatory support along the spectrum of cardiogenic shock.

A growing body of evidence indicates that the benefits of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) is dependent on its aetiology and timing of implantation. As such, appropriate diagnosis, screening, selection, and treatment is crucial to achieving good outcomes with tMCS. Here, the latest guidance on CS phenotypes and diagnostics for correctly identifying tMCS candidates is discussed. This includes comprehensive overviews of patient screening with attention given to differences in CS presentation between the sexes, and contraindications for mechanical circulatory support.

Concomitant Use of VA-ECMO and Impella Support for Cardiogenic Shock.

Background: VA-ECMO with concomitant Impella support (ECpella) is an emerging treatment modality for cardiogenic shock (CS). Survival outcomes by CS etiology with ECpella support have not been well-described. Methods: This study was a retrospective, single-center analysis of patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) or decompensated heart failure (ADHF-CS) supported with ECpella from December 2020 to January 2023. Primary outcomes included 90-day survival post-discharge and destination after support. Secondary outcomes included complications post-ECpella support. Results: A total of 44 patients were included (AMI-CS, n = 20, and ADHF-CS, n = 24). Patients with AMI-CS and ADHF-CS had similar survival 90 days post-discharge (p = .267) with similar destinations after ECpella support (p = .220). Limb ischemia and acute kidney injury occurred more frequently in patients presenting with AMI-CS (p=.013; p = .030). Patients with initial Impella support were more likely to survive ECpella support and be bridged to transplant (p=.033) and less likely to have a cerebrovascular accident (p=.016). Sub-analysis of ADHF-CS patients into acute-on-chronic decompensated heart failure and de novo heart failure demonstrated no difference in survival or destination. Conclusion: ECpella can be used to successfully manage patients with CS. There is no difference in survival or destination for AMI-CS and ADHF-CS in patients with ECpella support. Patients with initial Impella support are more likely to survive ECpella support and bridge to transplant. Future multicenter studies are required to fully analyze the differences between AMI-CS and ADHF-CS with ECpella support.

Systems of Care in Cardiogenic Shock.

Outcomes for cardiogenic shock (CS) patients remain relatively poor despite significant advancements in primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and temporary circulatory support (TCS) technologies. Mortality from CS shows great disparities that seem to reflect large variations in access to care and physician practice patterns. Recent reports of different models to standardize care in CS have shown considerable potential at improving outcomes. The creation of regional, integrated, 3-tiered systems, would facilitate standardized interventions and equitable access to care. Multidisciplinary CS teams at Level I centers would direct care in a hub-and-spoke model through jointly developed protocols and real-time shared decision making. Levels II and III centers would provide early access to life-saving therapies and safe transfer to designated hub centers. In regions with large geographical distances, the implementation of telemedicine-cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) care can be an important resource for the creation of effective systems of care.

Outcomes of Renal Function in Cardiogenic Shock Patients With or Without Mechanical Circulatory Support.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to compare the renal outcomes in patients presenting with all-cause cardiogenic shock who were supported by either Impella devices (Abiomed, Danvers, MA), intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), or vasopressors alone. Outcomes of cardiogenic shock remain poor even with the advancement of early revascularization and circulatory supportive care. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device has emerged as an effective strategy in protecting end organ function especially renal function during high risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and in patients with cardiogenic shock. Currently, comparative data amongst various MCS modalities and their association with improvement of renal function in cardiogenic shock patients have not been well characterized. METHODS: Data from New Jersey Cardiac Catheterization Data registry of cardiogenic shock patients from a single tertiary care institution that underwent cardiac catheterization and the modality used to treat were obtained, either with Impella devices, IABP, or treatment with vasopressors alone. Retrospective chart review was conducted to assess the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) on patients with cardiogenic shock prior to and after cardiac catheterization and renal function was evaluated over the course of 96 h after cardiac catheterization. Statistical analysis was performed to ascertain significant difference in creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in patients who received Impella devices, IABP, or were treated with vasopressors alone. RESULTS: A total of 61 all-cause cardiogenic shock patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in the study with 19 receiving IABPs, 15 receiving Impella devices, and 27 treated with vasopressors alone. Baseline characteristics among these three groups did not show any statistically significant difference. A total of 29 cardiogenic shock patients had experienced AKI prior to cardiac catheterization in which those receiving Impella devices showed statistically significant decrease in creatinine and increase in eGFR at 72 and 96 h (P < 0.05) compared to baseline. Within the same cohort, Impella group showed statistically significant lower creatinine at 96 h when compared to IABP. Patients that experienced AKI after cardiac catheterization did not show any statistically significant changes in renal function regardless of modality used. CONCLUSION: The results of our study suggest that Impella devices improve renal function in all-cause cardiogenic shock patients who experience AKI prior to undergoing cardiac catheterization.