Conceptual Considerations for Device-Based Therapy in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: DRI2P2S.

Acute decompensated heart failure remains the most common cause of hospitalization in older adults, and studies of pharmacological therapies have yielded limited progress in improving outcomes for these patients. This has prompted the development of novel device-based interventions, classified mechanistically based on the way in which they intend to improve central hemodynamics, increase renal perfusion, remove salt and water from the body, and result in clinically meaningful degrees of decongestion. In this review, we provide an overview of the pathophysiology of acute decompensated heart failure, current management strategies, and failed pharmacological therapies. We provide an in depth description of seven investigational device classes designed to target one or more of the pathophysiologic derangements in acute decompensated heart failure, denoted by the acronym DRI2P2S. Dilators decrease central pressures by increasing venous capacitance through splanchnic nerve modulation. Removers remove excess fluid through peritoneal dialysis, aquaphoresis, or hemodialysis. Inotropes directly modulate the cardiac nerve plexus to enhance ventricular contractility. Interstitial devices enhance volume removal through lymphatic duct decompression. Pushers are novel descending aorta rotary pumps that directly increase renal artery pressure. Pullers reduce central venous pressures or renal venous pressures to increase renal perfusion. Selective intrarenal artery catheters facilitate direct delivery of short acting vasodilator therapy. We also discuss challenges posed in clinical trial design for these novel device-based strategies including optimal patient selection and appropriate end points to establish efficacy.

A quality framework for the role of invasive, non-interventional cardiologists in the present-day cardiac catheterization laboratory: A multidisciplinary SCAI/HFSA expert consensus statement.

The present-day cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) is home to varied practitioners who perform both diagnostic, interventional, and complex invasive procedures. Invasive, non-interventional cardiologists are performing a significant proportion of the work as the CCL environment has evolved. This not only includes those who perform diagnostic-only cardiac catheterization but also heart failure specialists who may be involved in hemodynamic assessment and in mechanical circulatory support and pulmonary hypertension specialists and transplant cardiologists. As such, the training background of those who work in the CCL is varied. While most quality metrics in the CCL are directed towards evaluation of patients who undergo traditional interventional procedures, there has not been a focus upon providing these invasive, noninterventional cardiologists, hospital/CCL administrators, and CCL directors a platform for quality metrics. This document focuses on benchmarking quality for the invasive, noninterventional practice, providing this physician community with guidance towards a patient-centered approach to care, and offering tools to the invasive, noninterventionalists to help their professional growth. This consensus statement aims to establish a foundation upon which the invasive, noninterventional cardiologists can thrive in the CCL environment and work collaboratively with their interventional colleagues while ensuring that the highest quality of care is being delivered to all patients.

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Cardiogenic shock is a high-acuity, potentially complex, and hemodynamically diverse state of end-organ hypoperfusion that is frequently associated with multisystem organ failure. Despite improving survival in recent years, patient morbidity and mortality remain high, and there are few evidence-based therapeutic interventions known to clearly improve patient outcomes. This scientific statement on cardiogenic shock summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, causes, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock; reviews contemporary best medical, surgical, mechanical circulatory support, and palliative care practices; advocates for the development of regionalized systems of care; and outlines future research priorities.