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.

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.

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.

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.

Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Therapy for Prevention of Venous and Arterial Thrombotic Events in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: COVID-PACT.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of prophylactic full-dose anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients remain uncertain. METHODS: COVID-PACT (Prevention of Arteriovenous Thrombotic Events in Critically-ill COVID-19 Patients Trial) was a multicenter, 2×2 factorial, open-label, randomized-controlled trial with blinded end point adjudication in intensive care unit-level patients with COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation or standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation. Absent an indication for antiplatelet therapy, patients were additionally randomly assigned to either clopidogrel or no antiplatelet therapy. The primary efficacy outcome was the hierarchical composite of death attributable to venous or arterial thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, clinically evident deep venous thrombosis, type 1 myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic embolic event or acute limb ischemia, or clinically silent deep venous thrombosis, through hospital discharge or 28 days. The primary efficacy analyses included an unmatched win ratio and time-to-first event analysis while patients were on treatment. The primary safety outcome was fatal or life-threatening bleeding. The secondary safety outcome was moderate to severe bleeding. Recruitment was stopped early in March 2022 (≈50% planned recruitment) because of waning intensive care unit-level COVID-19 rates. RESULTS: At 34 centers in the United States, 390 patients were randomly assigned between anticoagulation strategies and 292 between antiplatelet strategies (382 and 290 in the on-treatment analyses). At randomization, 99% of patients required advanced respiratory therapy, including 15% requiring invasive mechanical ventilation; 40% required invasive ventilation during hospitalization. Comparing anticoagulation strategies, a greater proportion of wins occurred with full-dose anticoagulation (12.3%) versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (6.4%; win ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.08-3.55]; P=0.028). Results were consistent in time-to-event analysis for the primary efficacy end point (full-dose versus standard-dose incidence 19/191 [9.9%] versus 29/191 [15.2%]; hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.32-0.99]; P=0.046). The primary safety end point occurred in 4 (2.1%) on full dose and in 1 (0.5%) on standard dose (P=0.19); the secondary safety end point occurred in 15 (7.9%) versus 1 (0.5%; P=0.002). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.56-1.48]; P=0.70). There were no differences in the primary efficacy or safety end points with clopidogrel versus no antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with COVID-19, full-dose anticoagulation, but not clopidogrel, reduced thrombotic complications with an increase in bleeding, driven primarily by transfusions in hemodynamically stable patients, and no apparent excess in mortality. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04409834.

Variation in Hemodynamic Assessment and Interpretation: A Call to Standardize the Right Heart Catheterization.

BACKGROUND: Invasive hemodynamic measurement via right heart catheterization has shown divergent data in its role in the treatment of patients with heart failure (HF) and cardiogenic shock. We hypothesized that variation in data acquisition technique and interpretation might contribute to these observations. We sought to assess differences in hemodynamic acquisition and interpretation by operator subspecialty as well as level of experience. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individual-level responses to how physicians both collect and interpret hemodynamic data at the time of right heart catheterization was solicited via a survey distributed to international professional societies in HF and interventional cardiology. Data were stratified both by operator subspecialty (HF specialists or interventional cardiologists [IC]) and operator experience (early career [≤10 years from training] or late career [>10 years from training]) to determine variations in clinical practice. For the sensitivity analysis, we also look at differences in each subgroup. A total of 261 responses were received. There were 141 clinicians (52%) who self-identified as HF specialists, 99 (38%) identified as IC, and 20 (8%) identified as other. There were 142 early career providers (54%) and late career providers (119 [46%]). When recording hemodynamic values, there was considerable variation in practice patterns, regardless of subspecialty or level of experience for the majority of the intracardiac variables. There was no agreement or mild agreement among HF and IC as to when to record right atrial pressures or pulmonary capillary wedge pressures. HF cardiologists were more likely to routinely measure both Fick and thermodilution cardiac output compared with IC (51% vs 29%, P < .001), something mirrored in early career vs later career cardiologists. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation exists between the acquisition and interpretation of right heart catheterization measurements between HF and IC, as well as those early and late in their careers. With the growth of the heart team approach to management of patients in cardiogenic shock, standardization of both assessment and management practices is needed.

Design and Rationale for the Direct Oral Anticoagulant Apixaban in Left Ventricular Assist Devices (DOAC LVAD) Study.

Implantable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy is used to improve quality of life, alleviate symptoms and extend survival rates in patients with advanced heart failure. Patients with LVADs require chronic anticoagulation to reduce the risk of thromboembolic complications, and they commonly experience bleeding events. Apixaban is a direct oral anticoagulant that has become first-line therapy for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism; however, its safety in patients with LVADs has not been well characterized. The evaluation of the hemocompatibility in the DOAC LVAD (Direct Oral Anti-Coagulant apixaban in Left Ventricular Assist Devices) trial is a phase 2, open-label trial of patients with LVADs who were randomized to either apixaban or warfarin therapy. Patients randomized to apixaban will be started on a dosage of 5 mg twice daily, whereas those randomized to warfarin will be managed at an International Normalized Ratio goal of 2.0-2.5. All patients will be treated with aspirin at 81 mg daily. We plan to randomize and follow as many as 40 patients for 24 weeks to evaluate the primary outcomes of freedom from death or hemocompatibility-related adverse events (stroke, device thrombosis, bleeding, aortic root thrombus, and arterial non-CNS thromboembolism). The DOAC LVAD trial will establish the feasibility of apixaban anticoagulant therapy in patients with LVADs. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04865978.

Pulmonary Artery Catheter Use and Risk of In-hospital Death in Heart Failure Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) are increasingly used to guide management decisions in cardiogenic shock (CS). The goal of this study was to determine if PAC use was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality in CS owing to acute heart failure (HF-CS). METHODS AND RESULTS: This multicenter, retrospective, observational study included patients with CS hospitalized between 2019 and 2021 at 15 US hospitals participating in the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI), accounting for multiple variables at admission. The association between the timing of PAC placement and in-hospital death was also analyzed. A total of 1055 patients with HF-CS were included, of whom 834 (79%) received a PAC during their hospitalization. In-hospital mortality risk for the cohort was 24.7% (n = 261). PAC use was associated with lower adjusted in-hospital mortality risk (22.2% vs 29.8%, OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.94). Similar associations were found across SCAI stages of shock, both at admission and at maximum SCAI stage during hospitalization. Early PAC use (≤6 hours of admission) was observed in 220 PAC recipients (26%) and associated with a lower adjusted risk of in-hospital mortality compared with delayed (≥48 hours) or no PAC use (17.3% vs 27.7%, OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.37-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: This observational study supports PAC use, because it was associated with decreased in-hospital mortality in HF-CS, especially if performed within 6 hours of hospital admission. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: An observational study from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry of 1055 patients with HF-CS showed that pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use was associated with a lower adjusted in-hospital mortality risk (22.2% vs 29.8%, odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.94) compared with outcomes in patients managed without PAC. Early PAC use (≤6 hours of admission) was associated with a lower adjusted risk of in-hospital mortality compared with delayed (≥48 hours) or no PAC use (17.3% vs 27.7%, odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.81).

The influence of heart failure on clinical and economic outcomes among older adults ≥75 years of age with acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the influence of heart failure (HF) on clinical and economic outcomes among older adults ≥75 years of age during their acute myocardial infarction (AMI) admission in large population-based study from the United States. We also evaluated the clinical characteristics associated with the presence of HF and the predictors of mortality, healthcare utilization, and cost among older adults with AMI. METHODS: From January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2016, AMI admission was identified using the primary diagnosis and concomitant HF was identified using any non-primary diagnoses in the Premier Healthcare Database. RESULTS: Of the 468,654 patients examined, 42,946 (9%) had concomitant HF during their AMI admission. These patients were older, more often female, and were more likely to be White. Patients with concomitant HF were more likely to be frail than non-HF patients (59% vs 15%, P < .001). The mean (SD) Elixhauser comorbidity index was 2.6 (2.5) vs 0.4 (1.1), P < .001 in the AMI with HF vs AMI only group. The use of percutaneous coronary intervention in those with AMI and HF was lower than those with AMI only (15% vs 31%, P < .001). The overall mortality rate for those with HF was 12%, the median [IQR] hospital length of stay was 5 [3,9] days, and only 25% of patients were discharged home. A higher proportion of patients were discharged to rehabilitation or hospice if they had AMI and HF (Rehabilitation: 33% vs 20%, P < .001; Hospice: 5% vs 3%, P < .001). The mean unadjusted cost of an AMI hospitalization in patients with concomitant HF was lower ($12,411 ± $14,860) than in those without HF ($15,828 ± $19,330). After adjusting for age, gender, race, hypertension, frailty, revascularization strategy, and death, the average cost of hospitalization attributed to concomitant HF was +$1,075 (95% CI +876 to $1,274) when compared to AMI patients without HF. CONCLUSION: In patients ≥75 years of age, AMI with concomitant HF carries higher risk of death, but at ages ≥85 years, the risk difference diminishes due to other competing risks. HF was also associated with longer hospital length of stay and higher likelihood of referral to hospice and rehabilitation facilities when compared to older patients without HF. Care for these older adults is associated with increased hospitalization costs. Measures to identify HF in older adults during their AMI admission are necessary to optimize health outcomes, care delivery, and costs.

The Intersection Between Heart Failure and Critical Care Cardiology: An International Perspective on Structure, Staffing, and Design Considerations.

The overall patient population in contemporary cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) has only increased with respect to patient acuity, complexity, and illness severity. The current population has more cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities, a higher prevalence of multiorgan injury, and consumes more critical care resources than previously. Patients with heart failure (HF) now occupy a large portion of contemporary tertiary or quaternary care CICU beds around the world. In this review, we discuss the core issues that relate to the care of critically ill patients with HF, including global perspectives on the organization, designation, and collaboration of CICUs regionally and across institutions, as well as unique models for provisioning care for patients with HF within a health care setting. The latter includes a discussion of traditional and emerging models, specialized HF units, the makeup and implementation of multidisciplinary team-based decision-making, and cardiac critical care admission and triage practices. This article illustrates the ways in which critically ill patients with HF have helped to shape contemporary CICUs throughout the world and explores how these very patients will similarly help to inform the future maturation of these specialized critical care units. Finally, we will critically examine broad, contemporary, international models of HF and cardiac critical care delivery in North America, Europe, South America, and Asia, and conclude with opportunities for the further investigation and generation of evidence for care delivery.

Epidemiology of Acute Heart Failure in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: An Analysis From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network.

BACKGROUND: Acute heart failure (HF) is an important complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been hypothesized to relate to inflammatory activation. METHODS: We evaluated consecutive intensive care unit (ICU) admissions for COVID-19 across 6 centers in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network, identifying patients with vs without acute HF. Acute HF was subclassified as de novo vs acute-on-chronic, based on the absence or presence of prior HF. Clinical features, biomarker profiles and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Of 901 admissions to an ICU due to COVID-19, 80 (8.9%) had acute HF, including 18 (2.0%) with classic cardiogenic shock (CS) and 37 (4.1%) with vasodilatory CS. The majority (n = 45) were de novo HF presentations. Compared to patients without acute HF, those with acute HF had higher cardiac troponin and natriuretic peptide levels and similar inflammatory biomarkers; patients with de novo HF had the highest cardiac troponin levels. Notably, among patients critically ill with COVID-19, illness severity (median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, 8 [IQR, 5-10] vs 6 [4-9]; P = 0.025) and mortality rates (43.8% vs 32.4%; P = 0.040) were modestly higher in patients with vs those without acute HF. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients critically ill with COVID-19, acute HF is distinguished more by biomarkers of myocardial injury and hemodynamic stress than by biomarkers of inflammation.

Challenges and the innovations in the care of advanced heart failure patients during COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored our healthcare system's unpreparedness to manage an unprecedented pandemic. Heart failure (HF) physicians from 14 different academic and private practice centers share their systems' challenges and innovations to care for patients with HF, heart transplantation, and patients on LVAD support during the COVID-19 pandemic. We discuss measures implemented to alleviate the fear in seeking care, ensure continued optimization of guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT), manage the heart transplant waiting list, continue essential outpatient monitoring of anticoagulation in LVAD patients and surveillance testing post-heart transplant, and prevent physician burnout. This collaborative work can build a foundation for better preparation in the face of future challenges.

Challenges and Potential Improvements to Patient Access to Pharmaceuticals: Examples From Cardiology.

Patient access to a drug after US regulatory approval is controlled by complex interactions between governmental and third-party payers, pharmacy benefit managers, distributers, manufacturers, health systems, and pharmacies that together mediate the receipt of goods by patients after prescription by clinicians. Recent medication approvals highlight why and how the distribution of clinically beneficial novel therapies is controlled. Although imposed limitations on availability may be rational considering the fiduciary responsibilities of payers and escalating spending on health care and pharmaceuticals, transparency and communication are lacking, and some utilization management may disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. Analysis of the current health insurance landscape suggests mechanisms by which patient access to appropriate medications can be improved and patient and clinician frustration reduced while acknowledging the financial realities of the pharmaceutical marketplace. We propose creation of a shared, standardized, and transparent process for coverage decisions that minimizes administrative barriers and is defensible on the basis of clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence. These reforms would benefit patients and improve the efficiency of the pharmaceutical system.

The Range of Cardiogenic Shock Survival by Clinical Stage: Data From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiogenic shock presents with variable severity. Categorizing cardiogenic shock into clinical stages may improve risk stratification and patient selection for therapies. We sought to determine whether a structured implementation of the 2019 Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions clinical cardiogenic shock staging criteria that is ascertainable in clinical registries discriminates mortality in a contemporary population with or at-risk for cardiogenic shock. DESIGN: We developed a pragmatic application of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions cardiogenic shock staging criteria-A (at-risk), B (beginning), C (classic cardiogenic shock), D (deteriorating), or E (extremis)-and examined outcomes by stage. SETTING: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is an investigator-initiated multicenter research collaboration coordinated by the TIMI Study Group (Boston, MA). Consecutive admissions with or at-risk for cardiogenic shock during two annual 2-month collection periods (2017-2019) were analyzed. PATIENTS: Patients with or at-risk for cardiogenic shock. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 8,240 CICU admissions reviewed, 1,991 (24%) had or were at-risk for cardiogenic shock. Distributions across the five stages were as follows: A: 33%; B: 7%; C: 16%; D: 23%; and E: 21%. Overall in-hospital mortality among patients with established cardiogenic shock was 39%; however, mortality varied from only 15.8% to 32.1% to 62.5% across stages C, D, and E (Cochran-Armitage ptrend < 0.0001). The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions stages improved mortality prediction beyond the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumpin Cardiogenic Shock II scores. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall mortality in cardiogenic shock remains high, it varies considerably based on clinical stage, identifying stage C as relatively lower risk. We demonstrate a pragmatic adaptation of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions cardiogenic shock stages that effectively stratifies mortality risk and could be leveraged for future clinical research.

Estimation of Stressed Blood Volume in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock From Acute Myocardial Infarction and Decompensated Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Sympathetically mediated redistribution of blood from the unstressed venous reservoir to the hemodynamically active stressed compartment is thought to contribute to congestion in cardiogenic shock (CS). We used a novel computational method to estimate stressed blood volume (SBV) in CS and assess its relationship with clinical outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Hemodynamic parameters including estimated SBV (eSBV) were compared among patients from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry with a complete set of hemodynamic data. eSBV was compared across shock etiologies (acute myocardial infarction and CS (AMI-CS) vs heart failure with CS (HF-CS), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions stage, and between survivors and nonsurvivors. Among 528 patients with patients analyzed, the mean eSBV was 2423 mL/70 kg and increased with increasing Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions stage (B, 2029 mL/70 kg; C, 2305 mL/70 kg; D, 2496 mL/70 kg; E, 2707 mL/70 kg; P < .001). The eSBV was significantly greater among patients with HF-CS who died compared with survivors (2733 vs 2357 mL/70 kg; P < .001), whereas no significant difference was observed between outcome groups in AMI-CS (2501 mL/70 kg vs 2384 mL/70 kg; P = .19). CONCLUSIONS: eSBV is a novel integrated index of congestion which correlates with shock severity. eSBV was higher in patients with HF-CS who died; no difference was observed in patients with AMI-CS, suggesting that congestion may play a more significant role in the deterioration of patients with HF-CS.

Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Pathophysiology, Evaluation and Management Considerations: Review of Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock.

Despite increasing prevalence in critical care units, cardiogenic shock related to HF (HF-CS) is incompletely understood and distinct from acute myocardial infarction related CS. This review highlights the pathophysiology, evaluation, and contemporary management of HF-CS.

Right Ventricular Dysfunction Is Common and Identifies Patients at Risk of Dying in Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the prognostic impact of right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) in cardiogenic shock (CS) is a key step toward rational diagnostic and treatment algorithms and improved outcomes. Using a large multicenter registry, we assessed (1) the association between hemodynamic markers of RVD and in-hospital mortality, (2) the predictive value of invasive hemodynamic assessment incorporating RV evaluation, and (3) the impact of RVD severity on survival in CS. METHODS AND RESULTS: Inpatients with CS owing to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or heart failure (HF) between 2016 and 2019 were included. RV parameters (right atrial pressure, right atrial/pulmonary capillary wedge pressure [RA/PCWP], pulmonary artery pulsatility index [PAPI], and right ventricular stroke work index [RVSWI]) were assessed between survivors and nonsurvivors, and between etiology and SCAI stage subcohorts. Multivariable logistic regression analysis determined hemodynamic predictors of in-hospital mortality; the resulting models were compared with SCAI staging alone. Nonsurvivors had a significantly higher right atrial pressure and RA/PCWP and lower PAPI and RVSWI than survivors, consistent with more severe RVD. Compared with AMI, patients with HF had a significantly lower RA/PCWP (0.58 vs 0.66, P = .001) and a higher PAPI (2.71 vs 1.78, P < .001) and RVSWI (5.70 g-m/m2 vs 4.66 g-m/m2, P < .001), reflecting relatively preserved RV function. Paradoxically, multiple RVD parameters (PAPI, RVSWI) were associated with mortality in the HF but not the AMI cohort. RVD was more severe with advanced SCAI stage, although its prognostic value was progressively diluted in stages D and E. Multivariable modelling incorporating the RA/PCWP improved the predictive value of SCAI staging (area under the curve [AUC] 0.78 vs 0.73, P < .001), largely driven by patients with HF (AUC 0.82 vs 0.71, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: RVD is associated with poor outcomes in CS, with key differences across etiology and shock severity. Further studies are needed to assess the usefulness of RVD assessment in guiding therapy.

De Novo vs Acute-on-Chronic Presentations of Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Insights from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for an increasing proportion of cases of CS in contemporary cardiac intensive care units. Whether the chronicity of HF identifies distinct clinical profiles of HF-CS is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated admissions to cardiac intensive care units for HF-CS in 28 centers using data from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network registry (2017-2020). HF-CS was defined as CS due to ventricular failure in the absence of acute myocardial infarction and was classified as de novo vs acute-on-chronic based on the absence or presence of a prior diagnosis of HF, respectively. Clinical features, resource use, and outcomes were compared among groups. Of 1405 admissions with HF-CS, 370 had de novo HF-CS (26.3%), and 1035 had acute-on-chronic HF-CS (73.7%). Patients with de novo HF-CS had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and chronic kidney disease (all P < 0.01). Median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were higher in those with de novo HF-CS (8; 25th-75th: 5-11) vs acute-on-chronic HF-CS (6; 25th-75th: 4-9, P < 0.01), as was the proportion of Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock stage E (46.1% vs 26.1%, P < 0.01). After adjustment for clinical covariates and preceding cardiac arrest, the risk of in-hospital mortality was higher in patients with de novo HF-CS than in those with acute-on-chronic HF-CS (adjusted hazard ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.75, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Despite having fewer comorbidities, patients with de novo HF-CS had more severe shock presentations and worse in-hospital outcomes. Whether HF disease chronicity is associated with time-dependent compensatory adaptations, unique pathobiological features and responses to treatment in patients presenting with HF-CS warrants further investigation.

Percutaneous Impella RP use for refractory right heart failure in adolescents and young adults-A multicenter U.S. experience.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcomes of the use of the percutaneous Impella RP device (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) in adolescents and young adults. BACKGROUND: Results of the Impella RP device have been reported in adults, but a multicenter experience in adolescents and young adults has yet to be reported. METHODS: Patients ≤21 years of age who underwent implantation of an Impella RP device for refractory right heart failure from June, 2016 to April, 2018 at nine U.S. Centers were included. RESULTS: A total of 12 adolescents, median age of 18 (14-21) years and median weight 74.4 (49-112.4) kg underwent Impella RP implantation (INTERMACS Profile 1 in nine and Profile 2 in three patients. The central venous pressure decreased from 20 (16-35) to 12 (7-17) mmHg, (p = .001). One patient was concomitantly supported with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and the rest with a percutaneous/surgically placed left ventricular assist device. There was one adverse event related to the Impella RP device (thrombosis requiring explant). The support duration was 6.5 days (4.8 hr-18.4 days) and survival to hospital discharge was 83%. At a median follow-up of 11 months (5 days-2.5 years), 8 of 12 (67%) patients are alive. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter experience, the Impella RP device was found to be efficacious and safe when used in adolescents and young adults. Further studies are warranted to identify suitable young/pediatric candidates for Impella RP therapy for right heart failure.