Extracorporeal Life Support in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is increasingly used in the treatment of infarct-related cardiogenic shock despite a lack of evidence regarding its effect on mortality. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock for whom early revascularization was planned were randomly assigned to receive early ECLS plus usual medical treatment (ECLS group) or usual medical treatment alone (control group). The primary outcome was death from any cause at 30 days. Safety outcomes included bleeding, stroke, and peripheral vascular complications warranting interventional or surgical therapy. RESULTS: A total of 420 patients underwent randomization, and 417 patients were included in final analyses. At 30 days, death from any cause had occurred in 100 of 209 patients (47.8%) in the ECLS group and in 102 of 208 patients (49.0%) in the control group (relative risk, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.19; P = 0.81). The median duration of mechanical ventilation was 7 days (interquartile range, 4 to 12) in the ECLS group and 5 days (interquartile range, 3 to 9) in the control group (median difference, 1 day; 95% CI, 0 to 2). The safety outcome consisting of moderate or severe bleeding occurred in 23.4% of the patients in the ECLS group and in 9.6% of those in the control group (relative risk, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.50 to 3.95); peripheral vascular complications warranting intervention occurred in 11.0% and 3.8%, respectively (relative risk, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.31 to 6.25). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock with planned early revascularization, the risk of death from any cause at the 30-day follow-up was not lower among the patients who received ECLS therapy than among those who received medical therapy alone. (Funded by the Else Kröner Fresenius Foundation and others; ECLS-SHOCK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03637205.).

Mixed Cardiogenic Shock: A Proposal for Standardized Classification, a Hemodynamic Definition, and Framework for Management.

The classification of cardiogenic shock (CS) has evolved from a singular cold-and wet-hemodynamic profile. Data from registries and clinical trials have contributed to a broader recognition that although all patients with CS have insufficient cardiac output leading to end organ hypoperfusion, there is considerable variability in CS acuity, underlying etiologies, volume status, and systemic vascular resistance. Mixed CS can be broadly categorized as CS with at least 1 additional shock state. Mixed CS states are now the second leading cause of shock in contemporary coronary intensive care units, but there is little high-quality evidence to guide routine care, and there are no standardized classification frameworks or well-established hemodynamic definitions. This primer summarizes the current epidemiology and proposes a classification framework and invasive hemodynamic parameters to guide categorization that could be applied to help better phenotype patients captured in registries and trials, as well as guide management of mixed CS states.

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.

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.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support in infarct-related cardiogenic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials with 6-month follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous active mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are being increasingly used in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMICS) despite conflicting evidence regarding their effect on mortality. We aimed to ascertain the effect of early routine active percutaneous MCS versus control treatment on 6-month all-cause mortality in patients with AMICS. METHODS: In this individual patient data meta-analysis, randomised controlled trials of potential interest were identified, without language restriction, by querying the electronic databases MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov, up to Jan 26, 2024. All randomised trials with 6-month mortality data comparing early routine active MCS (directly in the catheterisation laboratory after randomisation) versus control in patients with AMICS were included. The primary outcome was 6-month all-cause mortality in patients with AMICS treated with early routine active percutaneous MCS versus control, with a focus on device type (loading, such as venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [VA-ECMO] vs unloading) and patient selection. Hazard ratios (HRs) of the primary outcome measure were calculated using Cox regression models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024504295. FINDINGS: Nine reports of randomised controlled trials (n=1114 patients) were evaluated in detail. Overall, four randomised controlled trials (n=611 patients) compared VA-ECMO with a control treatment and five randomised controlled trials (n=503 patients) compared left ventricular unloading devices with a control treatment. Two randomised controlled trials also included patients who did not have AMICS, who were excluded (55 patients [44 who were treated with VA-ECMO and 11 who were treated with a left ventricular unloading device]). The median patient age was 65 years (IQR 57-73); 845 (79·9%) of 1058 patients with data were male and 213 (20·1%) were female. No significant benefit of early unselected MCS use on 6-month mortality was noted (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·74-1·03]; p=0·10). No significant differences were observed for left ventricular unloading devices versus control (0·80 [0·62-1·02]; p=0·075), and loading devices also had no effect on mortality (0·93 [0·75-1·17]; p=0·55). Patients with ST-elevation cardiogenic shock without risk of hypoxic brain injury had a reduction in mortality with MCS use (0·77 [0·61-0·97]; p=0·024). Major bleeding (odds ratio 2·64 [95% CI 1·91-3·65]) and vascular complications (4·43 [2·37-8·26]) were more frequent with MCS use than with control. INTERPRETATION: The use of active MCS devices in patients with AMICS did not reduce 6-month mortality (regardless of the device used) and increased major bleeding and vascular complications. However, patients with ST-elevation cardiogenic shock without risk of hypoxic brain injury had a reduction in mortality after MCS use. Therefore, the use of MCS should be restricted to certain patients only. FUNDING: The Heart Center Leipzig at Leipzig University and the Foundation Institut für Herzinfarktforschung.

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.

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.

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.

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used in patients with cardiogenic shock despite the lack of evidence from adequately powered randomised clinical trials. Three trials reported so far were underpowered to detect a survival benefit; we therefore conducted an individual patient-based meta-analysis to assess the effect of VA-ECMO on 30-day death rate. METHODS: Randomised clinical trials comparing early routine use of VA-ECMO versus optimal medical therapy alone in patients presenting with infarct-related cardiogenic shock were identified by searching MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and trial registries until June 12, 2023. Trials were included if at least all-cause death rate 30 days after in-hospital randomisation was reported and trial investigators agreed to collaborate (ie, providing individual patient data). Odds ratios (ORs) as primary outcome measure were pooled using logistic regression models. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023431258). FINDINGS: Four trials (n=567 patients; 284 VA-ECMO, 283 control) were identified and included. Overall, there was no significant reduction of 30-day death rate with the early use of VA-ECMO (OR 0·93; 95% CI 0·66-1·29). Complication rates were higher with VA-ECMO for major bleeding (OR 2·44; 95% CI 1·55-3·84) and peripheral ischaemic vascular complications (OR 3·53; 95% CI 1·70-7·34). Prespecified subgroup analyses were consistent and did not show any benefit for VA-ECMO (pinteraction ≥0·079). INTERPRETATION: VA-ECMO did not reduce 30-day death rate compared with medical therapy alone in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock, and an increase in major bleeding and vascular complications was observed. A careful review of the indication for VA-ECMO in this setting is warranted. FUNDING: Foundation Institut für Herzinfarktforschung.

Prognostic performance of the IABP-SHOCK II Risk Score among cardiogenic shock subtypes in the critical care cardiology trials network registry.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification has potential to guide triage and decision-making in cardiogenic shock (CS). We assessed the prognostic performance of the IABP-SHOCK II score, derived in Europe for acute myocardial infarct-related CS (AMI-CS), in a contemporary North American cohort, including different CS phenotypes. METHODS: The critical care cardiology trials network (CCCTN) coordinated by the TIMI study group is a multicenter network of cardiac intensive care units (CICU). Participating centers annually contribute ≥2 months of consecutive medical CICU admissions. The IABP-SHOCK II risk score includes age > 73 years, prior stroke, admission glucose > 191 mg/dl, creatinine > 1.5 mg/dl, lactate > 5 mmol/l, and post-PCI TIMI flow grade < 3. We assessed the risk score across various CS etiologies. RESULTS: Of 17,852 medical CICU admissions 5,340 patients across 35 sites were admitted with CS. In patients with AMI-CS (n = 912), the IABP-SHOCK II score predicted a >3-fold gradient in in-hospital mortality (low risk = 26.5%, intermediate risk = 52.2%, high risk = 77.5%, P < .0001; c-statistic = 0.67; Hosmer-Lemeshow P = .79). The score showed a similar gradient of in-hospital mortality in patients with non-AMI-related CS (n = 2,517, P < .0001) and mixed shock (n = 923, P < .001), as well as in left ventricular (<0.0001), right ventricular (P = .0163) or biventricular (<0.0001) CS. The correlation between the IABP-SHOCK II score and SOFA was moderate (r2 = 0.17) and the IABP-SHOCK II score revealed a significant risk gradient within each SCAI stage. CONCLUSIONS: In an unselected international multicenter registry of patients admitted with CS, the IABP- SHOCK II score only moderately predicted in-hospital mortality in a broad population of CS regardless of etiology or irrespective of right, left, or bi-ventricular involvement.

Application of Cardiovascular Physiology to the Critically Ill Patient.

OBJECTIVES: To use the ventricular pressure-volume relationship and time-varying elastance model to provide a foundation for understanding cardiovascular physiology and pathophysiology, interpreting advanced hemodynamic monitoring, and for illustrating the physiologic basis and hemodynamic effects of therapeutic interventions. We will build on this foundation by using a cardiovascular simulator to illustrate the application of these principles in the care of patients with severe sepsis, cardiogenic shock, and acute mechanical circulatory support. DATA SOURCES: Publications relevant to the discussion of the time-varying elastance model, cardiogenic shock, and sepsis were retrieved from MEDLINE. Supporting evidence was also retrieved from MEDLINE when indicated. STUDY SELECTION, DATA EXTRACTION, AND SYNTHESIS: Data from relevant publications were reviewed and applied as indicated. CONCLUSIONS: The ventricular pressure-volume relationship and time-varying elastance model provide a foundation for understanding cardiovascular physiology and pathophysiology. We have built on this foundation by using a cardiovascular simulator to illustrate the application of these important principles and have demonstrated how complex pathophysiologic abnormalities alter clinical parameters used by the clinician at the bedside.

Current Use and Impact of Pulmonary Artery Catheters on the Short-Term Outcomes in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Treated With an Impella: Findings From the Japan Registry for Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device (J-PVAD).

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the current use and impact of pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) who underwent Impella support. DESIGN: This was a prospective multicenter observational study between January 2020 and December 2021 that registered all patients with drug-refractory acute heart failure and in whom the placement of an Impella 2.5, CP, or 5.0 pump was attempted or successful in Japan. SETTING: Cardiac ICUs in Japan. PATIENTS: Between January 2020 and December 2021, a total of 3112 patients treated with an Impella were prospectively enrolled in the Japan registry for percutaneous ventricular assist device (J-PVAD). Among them, 2063 patients with CS were divided into two groups according to the PAC use. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary endpoint was the 30-day mortality, and the secondary endpoints were hemolysis, acute kidney injury, sepsis, major bleeding unrelated to the Impella, and ventricular arrhythmias within 30 days. PACs were used in 1358 patients (65.8%) who underwent an Impella implantation. The use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) was significantly higher in the patients with PACs than in those without. Factors associated with PAC use were the prevalence of hypertension, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, New York Heart Association classification IV, the lesser prevalence of a heart rate less than 50, and the use of any catecholamine. The primary and secondary endpoints did not significantly differ according to the PAC use. Focusing on the patients with VA-ECMO use, the 30-day mortality and hemolysis were univariately lower in the patients with PACs. CONCLUSIONS: The J-PVAD findings indicated that PAC use did not have a significant impact on the short-term outcomes in CS patients undergoing Impella support. Further prospective studies are required to explore the clinical implications of PAC-guided intensive treatment strategies in these patients.

Association of Hemometabolic Trajectory and Mortality: Insights From the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Registry.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a hemodynamic syndrome that can progress to systemic metabolic derangements and end-organ dysfunction. Prior studies have reported hemodynamic parameters at the time of admission to be associated with mortality but hemodynamic trajectories in CS have not been well described. We studied the association between hemodynamic profiles and their trajectories and in-hospital mortality in patients with CS due to heart failure (HF-CS) and acute myocardial infarction (MI-CS). Using data from the large multicenter Cardiogenic Shock Working Group (CSWG) registry, we analyzed hemodynamic data obtained at the time of pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) insertion (dataset at baseline) and at PAC removal or death (dataset at final time point). Univariable regression analyses for prediction of in-hospital mortality were conducted for baseline and final hemodynamic values, as well as the interval change (delta-P). Data was further analyzed based on CS etiology and survival status. A total of 2260 patients with PAC data were included (70% male, age 61 ± 14 years, 61% HF-CS, 27% MI-CS). In-hospital mortality was higher in the MI-CS group (40.1%) compared with HF-CS (22.4%, P < .01). In the HF-CS cohort, survivors exhibited lower right atrial pressure (RAP), pulmonary artery pressure (PAP), cardiac output/index (CO/CI), lactate, and higher blood pressure (BP) than nonsurvivors at baseline. In this cohort, during hospitalization, improvement in metabolic (aspartate transaminase, lactate), BP, hemodynamic (RAP, pulmonary artery pulsatility index [PAPi], pulmonary artery compliance for right-sided profile and CO/CI for left-sided profile), had association with survival. In the MI-CS cohort, a lower systolic BP and higher PAP at baseline were associated with odds of death. Improvement in metabolic (lactate), BP, hemodynamic (RAP, PAPi for right-sided profile and CO/CI for left-sided profile) were associated with survival. In a large contemporary CS registry, hemodynamic trajectories had a strong association with short-term outcomes in both cohorts. These findings suggest the clinical importance of timing and monitoring hemodynamic trajectories to tailor management in patients with CS.

Sex-Based Survival Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Sex-based disparities have been demonstrated in care delivery for females with cardiogenic shock (CS), including lower use of coronary angiography (CAG), percutaneous intervention (PCI) and mechanical circulatory support (MCS). We evaluated whether sex-based disparities exist and are associated with worse CS outcomes in females. METHODS: We studied a retrospective cohort of 1498 consecutive, unique adult cardiovascular intensive care unit (CICU) admissions with CS from 2007-2018. RESULTS: Compared to males, females (n = 566, 37.1%) were older (71.7 vs 67.8 years; P < 0.001) but had similar burdens of medical comorbidities. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was present in 54.1% of females and 59.1% of males (P = 0.06). There were no sex-based differences in the use of CAG and PCI, but females received temporary MCS less commonly. Specifically, females with non-AMI CS received MCS devices less commonly (17.6% vs 24.4%; P = 0.04). There was no difference in in-hospital or 1-year mortality rates between the sexes. Compared to males, females who received PCI had lower risks of 1-year mortality (unadjusted HR 0.72; P = 0.03), whereas females who received CAG without PCI had higher risks of 1-year mortality (unadjusted HR 1.41; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: No sex-based disparities in mortality due to CS were demonstrated in this large, diverse cohort of patients with CICU admissions. Females who underwent PCI demonstrated lower risks of 1-year mortality, whereas females who underwent CAG without PCI demonstrated higher risks of 1-year mortality compared to males. This may reflect underuse of PCI as a mortality-reducing therapy in females.

Anticoagulation Medications, Monitoring, and Outcomes in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a syndrome of low cardiac output resulting in critical end-organ hypoperfusion and hypoxia. The mainstay of management involves optimizing preload, afterload and contractility. In medically refractory cases, temporary percutaneous mechanical support (MCS) is used as a bridge to recovery, surgical ventricular assist device, or transplant. Anticoagulation is recommended to prevent device-related thromboembolism. However, MCS can be fraught with hemorrhagic complications, compounded by incident multisystem organ failure often complicating CS. Currently, there are limited data on optimal anticoagulation strategies that balance the risk of bleeding and thrombosis, with most centers adopting local antithrombotic stewardship practices. In this review, we detail anticoagulation protocols, including anticoagulation agents, therapeutic monitoring, and complication mitigation in CS requiring MCS. This review is intended to provide an evidence-based framework in this population at high risk for in-hospital bleeding and mortality.

Cardiogenic Shock Intravascular Cooling Trial (CHILL-SHOCK).

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is complicated by high mortality rates. Targeted temperature control (TTC) has been proposed as an adjunct therapy in CS. This study aims to examine the safety of TTC in patients presenting with CS. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this open-label, randomized controlled pilot trial, 20 patients with hemodynamic criteria for CS were assigned to standard of care plus TTC vs standard of care alone. The primary outcome was a composite safety outcome, including well-described complications of TTC. Secondary outcomes included mortality at 90 days, invasive hemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters, electrocardiographic measurements, and inotrope dosing. There were no significant differences in the composite analysis of prespecified safety outcomes (3 events in the TTC group vs 0 events in the control group; P = 0.24). Patients randomized to TTC demonstrated a statistically significant increase in cardiac index and cardiac power index compared to the control group at 48-96 hours after randomization (3.6 [3.1, 3.9] L/min/m2 vs 2.6 [2.5, 3.15] L/min/m2; P = 0.029 and 0.61 [0.55, 0.7] W/m2 vs 0.53 [0.435, 0.565] W/m2; P = 0.029, respectively). CONCLUSION: TTC may be a safe adjunct therapy for patients presenting with CS and may yield improvement in specific hemodynamic parameters.

Modes of Death in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit: A Report from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on how patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) die. METHODS: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a research network of cardiac intensive care units coordinated by the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study Group (Boston, MA). Using standardized definitions, site investigators classified direct modes of in-hospital death for CS admissions (October 2021 to September 2022). Mutually exclusive categories included 4 modes of cardiovascular death and 4 modes of noncardiovascular death. Subgroups defined by CS type, preceding cardiac arrest (CA), use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS), and transition to comfort measures were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 1068 CS cases, 337 (31.6%) died during the index hospitalization. Overall, the mode of death was cardiovascular in 82.2%. Persistent CS was the dominant specific mode of death (66.5%), followed by arrhythmia (12.8%), anoxic brain injury (6.2%), and respiratory failure (4.5%). Patients with preceding CA were more likely to die from anoxic brain injury (17.1% vs 0.9%; P < .001) or arrhythmia (21.6% vs 8.4%; P < .001). Patients managed with tMCS were more likely to die from persistent shock (P < .01), both cardiogenic (73.5% vs 62.0%) and noncardiogenic (6.1% vs 2.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Most deaths in CS are related to direct cardiovascular causes, particularly persistent CS. However, there is important heterogeneity across subgroups defined by preceding CA and the use of tMCS.

Hemodynamic Response after Intra-aortic Balloon Counter-Pulsation in Cardiac Amyloidosis and Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: In those with heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS), an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) may improve hemodynamics and be useful as a bridge to advanced therapies. We explore whether those with cardiac amyloidosis and HF-CS might experience hemodynamic improvement and describe the hemodynamic response after IABP. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively identified consecutive patients with a diagnosis of cardiac amyloid, either light chain or transthyretin, who were admitted to our intensive care unit with HF-CS. Patients were excluded if an IABP was placed during heart transplant or for shock related to acute myocardial infarction. Invasive hemodynamics before and after IABP placement were assessed. We identified 23 patients with cardiac amyloid who had an IABP placed for HF-CS. The 1-year survival rate was 74% and most (65%) were bridged to heart transplant, although 1 patient was bridged to destination left ventricular assist device. After IABP, the mean arterial pressure, cardiac index, and cardiac power index were significantly increased, whereas mean right atrial pressure, mean pulmonary artery pressure, and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure were all significantly decreased. A smaller left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (per cm) was associated with a higher likelihood of a cardiac index of <2.2 L/min/m2 after IABP (odds ratio 0.16, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.93, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: IABP significantly improved cardiac index while decreasing right atrial pressure, mean pulmonary artery pressure, and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure in cardiac amyloidosis patients with HF-CS.

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 Right Ventricular Dysfunction on Outcomes in Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock: Insights from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) complicates 30%-40% of cases in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS). There are sparse data on the effects of RVD on outcomes and the impact of providing early left ventricular (LV) mechanical circulatory support (MCS) on RV function and hemodynamics. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between July 2016 and December 2020, 80 sites participated in the study. All centers agreed to treat patients with AMI-CS using a standard protocol emphasizing invasive hemodynamic monitoring and rapid initiation of LV-MCS. RVD was defined as a right atrial (RA) pressure of >12 mm Hg and a pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPI) of <1 within 24 hours of the index procedure. The primary outcome was survival to discharge. In a subgroup analysis, data available from the Automated Impella Controller console was used to analyze diastolic suction alarms from LV placement signal and its relation to RVD. A total of 361 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 28% had RVD. The median age was 64 years (interquartile range 55-72 years), 22.7% were female and 75.7% were White. There was no difference in age, sex, or comorbidities between those with or without RVD. Patients with RVD had a higher probability of active CPR during LV-MCS implant (14.7% vs 6.3%), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions stage E shock (39.2% vs 23.2%), and higher admission lactate levels (5.1 mg/dL vs 3.0 mg/dL). Survival to discharge was significantly lower among those with RVD (61.8% vs 73.4%, odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.36-0.95, P = .031). This association remained significant in the multivariate analysis. There was no significant difference in hemodynamic variables within 24 hours of LV-MCS support among those with or without RVD. At 24 hours, patients with a CPO of >0.6 W and a PAPi of >1 had a trend toward better survival to discharge compared with those with a CPO of ≤0.6 W and a PAPi of ≤1 (77.1% vs 54.6%, P = .092). Patients with RVD were significantly more likely to have diastolic suction alarms within 24 hours of LV-MCS initiation. CONCLUSIONS: RVD in AMI-CS is common and associated with worse survival to discharge. Early LV-MCS decreases filling pressures rapidly within the first 24 hours and decreases the rate of RVD. Achieving a CPO of >0.6 W and a PAPi of >1 within 24 hours is associated with high survival. Diastolic suction alarms may have usefulness as an early marker of RVD.