Critical Care Management of Patients After Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and Neurocritical Care Society.

The critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest is burdened by a lack of high-quality clinical studies and the resultant lack of high-certainty evidence. This results in limited practice guideline recommendations, which may lead to uncertainty and variability in management. Critical care management is crucial in patients after cardiac arrest and affects outcome. Although guidelines address some relevant topics (including temperature control and neurological prognostication of comatose survivors, 2 topics for which there are more robust clinical studies), many important subject areas have limited or nonexistent clinical studies, leading to the absence of guidelines or low-certainty evidence. The American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the Neurocritical Care Society collaborated to address this gap by organizing an expert consensus panel and conference. Twenty-four experienced practitioners (including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and a respiratory therapist) from multiple medical specialties, levels, institutions, and countries made up the panel. Topics were identified and prioritized by the panel and arranged by organ system to facilitate discussion, debate, and consensus building. Statements related to postarrest management were generated, and 80% agreement was required to approve a statement. Voting was anonymous and web based. Topics addressed include neurological, cardiac, pulmonary, hematological, infectious, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and general critical care management. Areas of uncertainty, areas for which no consensus was reached, and future research directions are also included. Until high-quality studies that inform practice guidelines in these areas are available, the expert panel consensus statements that are provided can advise clinicians on the critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest.

Scrutinizing the Role of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Has Clinical Practice Outpaced the Evidence?

The use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for temporary mechanical circulatory support in various clinical scenarios has been increasing consistently, despite the lack of sufficient evidence regarding its benefit and safety from adequately powered randomized controlled trials. Although the ARREST trial (Advanced Reperfusion Strategies for Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation) and a secondary analysis of the PRAGUE OHCA trial (Prague Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) provided some evidence in favor of VA-ECMO in the setting of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the INCEPTION trial (Early Initiation of Extracorporeal Life Support in Refractory Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) has not found a relevant improvement of short-term mortality with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In addition, the results of the recently published ECLS-SHOCK trial (Extracorporeal Life Support in Cardiogenic Shock) and ECMO-CS trial (Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock) discourage the routine use of VA-ECMO in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock. Ongoing clinical trials (ANCHOR [Assessment of ECMO in Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock, NCT04184635], REVERSE [Impella CP With VA ECMO for Cardiogenic Shock, NCT03431467], UNLOAD ECMO [Left Ventricular Unloading to Improve Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock Patients on VA-ECMO, NCT05577195], PIONEER [Hemodynamic Support With ECMO and IABP in Elective Complex High-risk PCI, NCT04045873]) may clarify the usefulness of VA-ECMO in specific patient subpopulations and the efficacy of combined mechanical circulatory support strategies. Pending further data to refine patient selection and management recommendations for VA-ECMO, it remains uncertain whether the present usage of this device improves outcomes.

Cardiogenic Shock in Older Adults: A Focus on Age-Associated Risks and Approach to Management: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Cardiogenic shock continues to portend poor outcomes, conferring short-term mortality rates of 30% to 50% despite recent scientific advances. Age is a nonmodifiable risk factor for mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock and is often considered in the decision-making process for eligibility for various therapies. Older adults have been largely excluded from analyses of therapeutic options in patients with cardiogenic shock. As a result, despite the association of advanced age with worse outcomes, focused strategies in the assessment and management of cardiogenic shock in this high-risk and growing population are lacking. Individual programs oftentimes develop upper age limits for various interventional strategies for their patients, including heart transplantation and durable left ventricular assist devices. However, age as a lone parameter should not be used to guide individual patient management decisions in cardiogenic shock. In the assessment of risk in older adults with cardiogenic shock, a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach is central to developing best practices. In this American Heart Association scientific statement, we aim to summarize our contemporary understanding of the epidemiology, risk assessment, and in-hospital approach to management of cardiogenic shock, with a unique focus on older adults.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock: Results of the ECMO-CS Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly being used for circulatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock, although the evidence supporting its use in this context remains insufficient. The ECMO-CS trial (Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock) aimed to compare immediate implementation of VA-ECMO versus an initially conservative therapy (allowing downstream use of VA-ECMO) in patients with rapidly deteriorating or severe cardiogenic shock. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, investigator-initiated, academic clinical trial included patients with either rapidly deteriorating or severe cardiogenic shock. Patients were randomly assigned to immediate VA-ECMO or no immediate VA-ECMO. Other diagnostic and therapeutic procedures were performed as per current standards of care. In the early conservative group, VA-ECMO could be used downstream in case of worsening hemodynamic status. The primary end point was the composite of death from any cause, resuscitated circulatory arrest, and implementation of another mechanical circulatory support device at 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients were randomized; after excluding 5 patients because of the absence of informed consent, 117 subjects were included in the analysis, of whom 58 were randomized to immediate VA-ECMO and 59 to no immediate VA-ECMO. The composite primary end point occurred in 37 (63.8%) and 42 (71.2%) patients in the immediate VA-ECMO and the no early VA-ECMO groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.46-1.12]; P=0.21). VA-ECMO was used in 23 (39%) of no early VA-ECMO patients. The 30-day incidence of resuscitated cardiac arrest (10.3.% versus 13.6%; risk difference, -3.2 [95% CI, -15.0 to 8.5]), all-cause mortality (50.0% versus 47.5%; risk difference, 2.5 [95% CI, -15.6 to 20.7]), serious adverse events (60.3% versus 61.0%; risk difference, -0.7 [95% CI, -18.4 to 17.0]), sepsis, pneumonia, stroke, leg ischemia, and bleeding was not statistically different between the immediate VA-ECMO and the no immediate VA-ECMO groups. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate implementation of VA-ECMO in patients with rapidly deteriorating or severe cardiogenic shock did not improve clinical outcomes compared with an early conservative strategy that permitted downstream use of VA-ECMO in case of worsening hemodynamic status. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02301819.

Standardized Definitions for Cardiogenic Shock Research and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: Scientific Expert Panel From the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC).

The Shock Academic Research Consortium is a multi-stakeholder group, including representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies, industry, and payers, convened to develop pragmatic consensus definitions useful for the evaluation of clinical trials enrolling patients with cardiogenic shock, including trials evaluating mechanical circulatory support devices. Several in-person and virtual meetings were convened between 2020 and 2022 to discuss the need for developing the standardized definitions required for evaluation of mechanical circulatory support devices in clinical trials for cardiogenic shock patients. The expert panel identified key concepts and topics by performing literature reviews, including previous clinical trials, while recognizing current challenges and the need to advance evidence-based practice and statistical analysis to support future clinical trials. For each category, a lead (primary) author was assigned to perform a literature search and draft a proposed definition, which was presented to the subgroup. These definitions were further modified after feedback from the expert panel meetings until a consensus was reached. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel recommendations focused on outcome definitions, including efficacy and safety.

Unloading the Left Ventricle in Venoarterial ECMO: In Whom, When, and How?

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation provides cardiorespiratory support to patients in cardiogenic shock. This comes at the cost of increased left ventricle (LV) afterload that can be partly ascribed to retrograde aortic flow, causing LV distension, and leads to complications including cardiac thrombi, arrhythmias, and pulmonary edema. LV unloading can be achieved by using an additional circulatory support device to mitigate the adverse effects of mechanical overload that may increase the likelihood of myocardial recovery. Observational data suggest that these strategies may improve outcomes, but in whom, when, and how LV unloading should be employed is unclear; all techniques require balancing presumed benefits against known risks of device-related complications. This review summarizes the current evidence related to LV unloading with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Critical Care Management of Patients After Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association and Neurocritical Care Society.

The critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest is burdened by a lack of high-quality clinical studies and the resultant lack of high-certainty evidence. This results in limited practice guideline recommendations, which may lead to uncertainty and variability in management. Critical care management is crucial in patients after cardiac arrest and affects outcome. Although guidelines address some relevant topics (including temperature control and neurological prognostication of comatose survivors, 2 topics for which there are more robust clinical studies), many important subject areas have limited or nonexistent clinical studies, leading to the absence of guidelines or low-certainty evidence. The American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the Neurocritical Care Society collaborated to address this gap by organizing an expert consensus panel and conference. Twenty-four experienced practitioners (including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and a respiratory therapist) from multiple medical specialties, levels, institutions, and countries made up the panel. Topics were identified and prioritized by the panel and arranged by organ system to facilitate discussion, debate, and consensus building. Statements related to postarrest management were generated, and 80% agreement was required to approve a statement. Voting was anonymous and web based. Topics addressed include neurological, cardiac, pulmonary, hematological, infectious, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and general critical care management. Areas of uncertainty, areas for which no consensus was reached, and future research directions are also included. Until high-quality studies that inform practice guidelines in these areas are available, the expert panel consensus statements that are provided can advise clinicians on the critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest.

Escalating and De-escalating Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

The use of temporary mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock has increased dramatically despite a lack of randomized controlled trials or evidence guiding clinical decision-making. Recommendations from professional societies on temporary mechanical circulatory support escalation and de-escalation are limited. This scientific statement provides pragmatic suggestions on temporary mechanical circulatory support device selection, escalation, and weaning strategies in patients with common cardiogenic shock causes such as acute decompensated heart failure and acute myocardial infarction. The goal of this scientific statement is to serve as a resource for clinicians making temporary mechanical circulatory support management decisions and to propose standardized approaches for their use until more robust randomized clinical data are available.

Invasive Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the most common cause of mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The SHOCK trial (Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock) demonstrated a survival benefit with early revascularization in patients with CS complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMICS) 20 years ago. After an initial improvement in mortality related to revascularization, mortality rates have plateaued. A recent Society of Coronary Angiography and Interventions classification scheme was developed to address the wide range of CS presentations. In addition, a recent scientific statement from the American Heart Association recommended the development of CS centers using standardized protocols for diagnosis and management of CS, including mechanical circulatory support devices (MCS). A number of CS programs have implemented various protocols for treating patients with AMICS, including the use of MCS, and have published promising results using such protocols. Despite this, practice patterns in the cardiac catheterization laboratory vary across health systems, and there are inconsistencies in the use or timing of MCS for AMICS. Furthermore, mortality benefit from MCS devices in AMICS has yet to be established in randomized clinical trials. In this article, we outline the best practices for the contemporary interventional management of AMICS, including coronary revascularization, the use of MCS, and special considerations such as the treatment of patients with AMICS with cardiac arrest.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock during COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate characteristics and outcomes of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has created challenges in delivering acute cardiovascular care. Quality measures and outcomes of patients presenting with AMICS during COVID-19 in the United States have not been well described. METHODS: We identified 406 patients from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI) with AMICS and divided them into those presenting before (N = 346, 5/9/2016-2/29/2020) and those presenting during the COVID-19 pandemic (N = 60, 3/1/2020-11/10/2020). We compared baseline clinical data, admission characteristics, and outcomes. RESULTS: The median age of the cohort was 64 years, and 23.7% of the group was female. There were no significant differences in age, sex, and medical comorbidities between the two groups. Patients presenting during the pandemic were less likely to be Black compared to those presenting prior. Median door to balloon (90 vs. 88 min, p = 0.38), door to support (88 vs. 78 min, p = 0.13), and the onset of shock to support (74 vs. 62 min, p = 0.15) times were not significantly different between the two groups. Patients presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction more often during the COVID-19 period (95.0% vs. 80.0%, p = 0.005). In adjusted logistic regression models, COVID-19 period did not significantly associate with survival to discharge (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-2.19, p = 0.81) or with 1-month survival (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.42-1.61, p = 0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Care of patients presenting with AMICS has remained robust among hospitals participating in the NCSI during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Left Ventricular Unloading Is Associated With Lower Mortality in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Treated With Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Results From an International, Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used to treat cardiogenic shock. However, VA-ECMO might hamper myocardial recovery. The Impella unloads the left ventricle. This study aimed to evaluate whether left ventricular unloading in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO was associated with lower mortality. METHODS: Data from 686 consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO with or without left ventricular unloading using an Impella at 16 tertiary care centers in 4 countries were collected. The association between left ventricular unloading and 30-day mortality was assessed by Cox regression models in a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort. RESULTS: Left ventricular unloading was used in 337 of the 686 patients (49%). After matching, 255 patients with left ventricular unloading were compared with 255 patients without left ventricular unloading. In the matched cohort, left ventricular unloading was associated with lower 30-day mortality (hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.63-0.98]; P=0.03) without differences in various subgroups. Complications occurred more frequently in patients with left ventricular unloading: severe bleeding in 98 (38.4%) versus 45 (17.9%), access site-related ischemia in 55 (21.6%) versus 31 (12.3%), abdominal compartment in 23 (9.4%) versus 9 (3.7%), and renal replacement therapy in 148 (58.5%) versus 99 (39.1%). CONCLUSIONS: In this international, multicenter cohort study, left ventricular unloading was associated with lower mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO, despite higher complication rates. These findings support use of left ventricular unloading in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO and call for further validation, ideally in a randomized, controlled trial.

Value of Hemodynamic Monitoring in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support.

The recent widespread availability and use of mechanical circulatory support is transforming the management and outcomes of cardiogenic shock (CS). Clinical decision-making regarding the optimization of therapies for patients with CS can be guided effectively by hemodynamic monitoring with a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC). Because several studies regarding the benefit of PACs are ambiguous, the use of PACs is variable among clinicians treating patients with CS. More notable is that PAC use has not been studied as part of a randomized, controlled trial in patients with CS with or without mechanical circulatory support. Standardized approaches to hemodynamic monitoring in these patients can improve decision-making and outcomes. In this review, we summarize the hemodynamics of CS and mechanical circulatory support with PAC-derived measurements, and provide a compelling rationale for the use of PAC monitoring in patients with CS receiving mechanical circulatory support.

The Evolving Landscape of Impella Use in the United States Among Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Mechanical Circulatory Support.

BACKGROUND: Impella was approved for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in 2008, but large-scale, real-world data on its use are lacking. Our objective was to describe trends and variations in Impella use, clinical outcomes, and costs across US hospitals in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) treated with MCS (Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump). METHODS: From the Premier Healthcare Database, we analyzed 48 306 patients undergoing PCI with MCS at 432 hospitals between January 2004 and December 2016. Association analyses were performed at 3 levels: time period, hospital, and patient. Hierarchical models with propensity adjustment were used for association analyses. We examined trends and variations in the proportion of Impella use, and associated clinical outcomes (in-hospital mortality, bleeding requiring transfusion, acute kidney injury, stroke, length of stay, and hospital costs). RESULTS: Among patients undergoing PCI treated with MCS, 4782 (9.9%) received Impella; its use increased over time, reaching 31.9% of MCS in 2016. There was wide variation in Impella use across hospitals (>5-fold variation). Specifically, among patients receiving Impella, there was a wide variation in outcomes of bleeding (>2.5-fold variation), and death, acute kidney injury, and stroke (all ≈1.5-fold variation). Adverse outcomes and costs were higher in the Impella era (years 2008-2016) versus the pre-Impella era (years 2004-2007). Hospitals with higher Impella use had higher rates of adverse outcomes and costs. After adjustment for the propensity score, and accounting for clustering of patients by hospitals, Impella use was associated with death: odds ratio, 1.24 (95% CI, 1.13-1.36); bleeding: odds ratio, 1.10 (95% CI, 1.00-1.21); and stroke: odds ratio, 1.34 (95% CI, 1.18-1.53), although a similar, nonsignificant result was observed for acute kidney injury: odds ratio, 1.08 (95% CI, 1.00-1.17). CONCLUSIONS: Impella use is rapidly increasing among patients undergoing PCI treated with MCS, with marked variability in its use and associated outcomes. Although unmeasured confounding cannot be ruled out, when analyzed by time periods, or at the hospital level or the patient level, Impella use was associated with higher rates of adverse events and costs. More data are needed to define the appropriate role of MCS in patients undergoing PCI.

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.

Post hoc closure of large bore vascular access using the MANTA closure device.

Successful closure of large bore vascular access (≥12 Fr) is facilitated by the MANTA vascular closure device; however, it requires a critical first step of measuring "skin to arterial wall" depth of the access site using the depth locator before dilating the vessel above 8 Fr. It may be challenging at times to acquire the deployment depth at the onset of the procedure due to case urgency, delayed closure, or when large bore access is obtained at a different institution. We discuss a novel technique of measuring the deployment depth and successful delayed closure of large bore arterial access using the MANTA closure device.

Mild Hypothermia in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Experimental trials suggest improved outcome by mild therapeutic hypothermia for cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. The objective of this study was to investigate the hemodynamic effects of mild therapeutic hypothermia in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: Patients (n=40) with cardiogenic shock undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention without classic indications for mild therapeutic hypothermia underwent randomization in a 1:1 fashion to mild therapeutic hypothermia for 24 hours or control. The primary end point was cardiac power index at 24 hours; secondary end points included other hemodynamic parameters and serial measurements of arterial lactate. RESULTS: No relevant differences were observed for the primary end point of cardiac power index at 24 hours (mild therapeutic hypothermia versus control: 0.41 [interquartile range, 0.31-0.52] versus 0.36 [interquartile range, 0.31-0.48] W/m2; P=0.50; median difference, -0.025 W/m2; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.06). Similarly, all other hemodynamic measurements were not statistically different. Arterial lactate levels at 6, 8, and 10 hours were significantly higher in patients in the mild therapeutic hypothermia group with a slower decline ( P for interaction=0.03). There were no differences in 30-day mortality (60% versus 50%; hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.55-2.94; P=0.55). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, mild therapeutic hypothermia failed to show a substantial beneficial effect on cardiac power index at 24 hours in patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01890317.

Impella Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices are increasingly used in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), despite limited evidence for their effectiveness. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes associated with use of the Impella device compared with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and medical treatment in patients with AMI-CS. METHODS: Data of patients with AMI-CS treated with the Impella device at European tertiary care hospitals were collected retrospectively. All patients underwent early revascularization and received optimal medical treatment. Using IABP-SHOCK II (Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II) trial inclusion and exclusion criteria, 372 patients were identified and included in this analysis. These patients were matched to 600 patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial. The following baseline criteria were used as matching parameters: age, sex, mechanical ventilation, ejection fraction, prior cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and lactate. Primary end point was 30-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: In total, 237 patients treated with an Impella could be matched to 237 patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial. Baseline parameters were similarly distributed after matching. There was no significant difference in 30-day all-cause mortality (48.5% versus 46.4%, P=0.64). Severe or life-threatening bleeding (8.5% versus 3.0%, P<0.01) and peripheral vascular complications (9.8% versus 3.8%, P=0.01) occurred significantly more often in the Impella group. Limiting the analysis to IABP-treated patients as a control group did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis of patients with AMI-CS, the use of an Impella device was not associated with lower 30-day mortality compared with matched patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial treated with an IABP or medical therapy. To further evaluate this, a large randomized trial is warranted to determine the effect of the Impella device on outcome in patients with AMI-CS. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03313687.

Novel technique of performing multivessel PCI through an Impella sheath.

A 69-year-old woman with diabetes was found to have multi-vessel coronary artery disease and underwent 5-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting. Patient had persistent cardiogenic shock postoperatively despite intra-aortic balloon pump and escalating pressor requirements. Electrocardiogram showed new ischemic changes and the patient was urgently taken to the catheterization lab for coronary angiography and placement of an Impella CP for higher degree of hemodynamic support via the left femoral artery. Due to limitations in vascular access the Impella CP sheath was utilized for vascular access for diagnostic angiography and coronary intervention concurrently with ongoing Impella CP support. The first obtuse marginal had severe proximal disease and was treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a drug eluting stent. To our knowledge, this case is the first in which successful diagnostic angiography as well as multi-vessel PCI was performed via an Impella sheath while concurrently using the percutaneous mechanical circulatory support system of the Impella CP. Multiple guide catheters and a pigtail catheter were successfully passed via the Impella CP sheath to perform PCI. This novel method of vascular access could be an important tool to use in high-risk patients with limitations in access sites and decrease potential bleeding complications by limiting the number of arterial punctures.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with heart transplantation : A clinical prognosis analysis.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is indicated for bridging to heart transplantation, graft failure, and right heart failure after heart transplantation. This study explored risk factors affecting the clinical prognosis of cardiac transplantation patients treated with ECMO during the perioperative period. METHODS: Data on 28 heart transplantation patients with ECMO obtained from January 2012 to January 2018 in the People's Hospital of Zhongshan City were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients (20 male and 5 female) were finally included. Heart transplantation was performed mainly due to cardiomyopathy (77.8%). Of the treated patients, 18 (72%) survived and were discharged, 4 were treated with cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) before ECMO, and 3 died in hospital. There were no differences between the surviving and death group donors (N-terminal pro b­type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP], creatine kinase-muscle/brain [CK-MB], warm ischemia time of donated heart, cold ischemia time of donated heart, total ischemia time of donated heart, and donor type). In univariate analysis, body mass index (BMI), length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU), and CPR were relevant prognostic factors for heart transplantation patients with ECMO. Multi-factor logistic regression showed that CPR before ECMO (odds ratio, OR, 49.45; 95% confidence interval, CI, [1.37, 1781.6]; P = 0.033) is an independent risk factor influencing prognosis. CONCLUSION: ECMO is an important life support method for patients before and after heart transplantation surgery. Obesity, poor preoperative cardiac function, and considerable intraoperative red blood cell transfusion may influence prognosis. Extracardiac compression before ECMO is an independent risk factor for prognosis.

[Gender difference in efficacy of intra-aortic balloon pump in acute myocardial infarction patients complicating with cardiogenic shock].

Objective: To investigate the effect of gender on the efficacy of intra-aortic balloon pump(IABP) applied in patients with cardiogenic shock complicated by acute myocardial infarction(AMI). Methods: A total of 209 patients diagnosed as cardiogenic shock complicated by AMI admitted in Fuwai Hospital from June 2012 to May 2018 were enrolled in our study. We collected the data from medical records and investigated their clinical manifestation and laboratory examination and IABP support, as well as 28-day (from diagnosis of cardiogenic shock) mortality retrospectively. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to compare the 28-day survival rates of patients of different genders/with or without IABP treatment. Adjustment for age, systolic blood pressure, ST segment elevation myocardial infarction, dual antiplatelet, coma, APACHEⅡ score and SAPSⅡ score, Cox regression analysis was used to detect the affect of IABP treatment on the risk of all-cause mortality in different crowd, and using Z test to evaluate the modification effect of gender on IABP treatment efficacy. Results: A total of 209 patients were included in this study, with 148 males (80 (54.05%) cases received IABP support) and 61 females (22 (36.06%) cases received IABP support). A total of 102 patients received IABP treatment. The 28-day survival rate of male patients was higher than that of females (39.2% (58/148) vs. 26.2% (16/61), Log-rank P=0.034). The 28-day survival rate of patients receiving IABP was significantly higher than that of non-IABP groups (46.1% (47/102) vs. 25.2% (27/107), Log-rank P=0.001 7). Among female patients, there was no statistically significant difference in 28-day survival rate between those who received IABP and those who did not receive IABP (P=0.889). While in male patients, the 28-day survival rate of those who received IABP was higher than that of those who did not receive IABP (51.2% (41/80) vs. 25.0% (17/68), P=0.001). The survival rate of male patients treated with IABP was higher than that of male patients who did not receive IABP, female patients who did not receive IABP and female patients who received IABP (all P<0.05). After multiple regression analysis and adjustment of confounding factors, it was found that IABP implantation can significantly reduce the 28-day mortality risk in male patients (HR=0.44, 95%CI 0.25-0.77 P=0.004). While it had no inpact on the death risk in female patients(P= 0.401). The impact of IABP implantation in patients of different genders was significantly different (Z=-2.32, P=0.020). Conclusion: In AMI patients complicating cardiogenic shock, there is a gender difference in the impact of IABP implantation on the 28-day mortality risk, and protective effects are seen only in men.