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.

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.

Short-term and long-term outcomes of cardiac arrhythmias in patients with cardiogenic shock.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiogenic shock is severe circulatory failure that results in significant in-hospital mortality, related morbidity, and economic burden. Patients with cardiogenic shock are at high risk for atrial and ventricular arrhythmias, particularly within the subset of patients with an overlap of cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest. AREAS COVERED: This review article will explore the prevalence, definition, management, and outcomes of common arrhythmias in patients with cardiogenic shock. This review will describe the pathophysiology of arrhythmia in cardiogenic shock and the impact of inotropic agents on increased arrhythmogenicity. In addition to medical management, focused assessment of mechanical circulatory support, radiofrequency ablation, deep sedation, and stellate ganglion block will be provided. EXPERT OPINION: We will navigate the limited data and describe the prognostic impacts of arrhythmia. Finally, we will conclude the review with a discussion of prevention strategies, research limitations, and future research directions.

Serial Shock Severity Assessment Within 72 Hours After Diagnosis: A Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Report.

BACKGROUND: The Cardiogenic Shock Working Group-modified Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (CSWG-SCAI) staging was developed to risk stratify cardiogenic shock (CS) severity. Data showing progressive changes in SCAI stages and outcomes are limited. OBJECTIVES: We investigated serial changes in CSWG-SCAI stages and outcomes of patients presenting with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (MI-CS) and heart failure-related CS (HF-CS). METHODS: The multicenter CSWG registry was queried. CSWG-SCAI stages were computed at CS diagnosis and 24, 48, and 72 hours. RESULTS: A total of 3,268 patients (57% HF-CS; 27% MI-CS) were included. At CS diagnosis, CSWG-SCAI stage breakdown was 593 (18.1%) stage B, 528 (16.2%) stage C, 1,659 (50.8%) stage D, and 488 (14.9%) noncardiac arrest stage E. At 24 hours, >50% of stages B and C patients worsened, but 86% of stage D patients stayed at stage D. Among stage E patients, 54% improved to stage D and 36% stayed at stage E by 24 hours. Minimal SCAI stage changes occurred beyond 24 hours. SCAI stage trajectories were similar between MI-CS and HF-CS groups. Within 24 hours, unadjusted mortality rates of patients with any SCAI stage worsening or improving were 44.6% and 34.2%, respectively. Patients who presented in or progressed to stage E by 24 hours had the worst prognosis. Survivors had lower lactate than nonsurvivors. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with CS changed SCAI stages within 24 hours from CS diagnosis. Stage B patients were at high risk of worsening shock severity by 24 hours, associated with excess mortality. Early CS recognition and serial assessment may improve risk stratification.

Pragmatic approach to temporary mechanical circulatory support in acute right ventricular failure.

Acute right ventricular failure (RVF) is prevalent in multiple disease states and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Right-sided temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices are used to unload RV congestion and increase cardiac output in cardiogenic shock (CS) with hemodynamically significant RVF. Several RV-tMCS device platforms are available; however consensus is lacking on patient selection, timing of escalation to RV-tMCS, device management, and device weaning. The purposes of this review are to 1) describe the current state of tMCS device therapies for acute RVF with CS, 2) discuss principles of escalation to RV-tMCS device therapy, 3) examine important aspects of clinical management for patients supported by RV-tMCS devices including volume management, anticoagulation, and positive pressure ventilation, and 4) provide a framework for RV-tMCS weaning.

Clinical outcomes among cardiogenic shock patients supported with high-capacity Impella axial flow pumps: A report from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group.

BACKGROUND: The Impella 5.0 and 5.5 pumps (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) are large-bore transvalvular micro-axial assist devices used in cardiogenic shock (CS) for patients requiring high-capacity flow. Despite their increasing use, real-world data regarding indications, rates of utilization and clinical outcomes with this therapy are limited. The objective of our study was to examine clinical profiles and outcomes of patients in a contemporary, real-world CS registry of patients who received an Impella 5.0/5.5 alone or in combination with other temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices. METHODS: The CS Working Group (CSWG) Registry includes patients from 34 US hospitals. For this analysis, data from patients who received an Impella 5.0/5.5 between 2020-2023 were analyzed. Use of Impella 5.0/5.5 with or without additional tMCS therapies, duration of support, adverse events and outcomes at hospital discharge were studied. Adverse events including stroke, limb ischemia, bleeding and hemolysis were not standardized by the registry but reported per individual CSWG Primary Investigator discretion. For those who survived, rates of native heart recovery (NHR) or heart replacement therapy (HRT) including heart transplant (HT), or durable ventricular assist device (VAD) were recorded. We also assessed outcomes based on shock etiology (acute myocardial infarction or MI-CS vs. heart failure-related CS or HF-CS). RESULTS: Among 6,205 patients, 754 received an Impella 5.0/5.5 (12.1%), including 210 MI-CS (27.8%) and 484 HF-CS (64.1%) patients. Impella 5.0/5.5 was used as the sole tMCS device in 32% of patients, while 68% of patients received a combination of tMCS devices. Impella cannulation sites were available for 524/754 (69.4%) of patients, with 93.5% axillary configuration. Survival to hospital discharge for those supported with an Impella 5.0/5.5 was 67%, with 20.4% NHR and 45.5% HRT. Compared to HF-CS, patients with MI-CS supported on Impella 5.0/5.5 had higher in-hospital mortality (45.2% vs 26.2%, p < 0.001) and were less likely to receive HRT (22.4% vs 56.6%, p < 0.001. For patients receiving a combination of tMCS during hospitalization, this was associated with higher rates of limb ischemia (9% vs. 3%, p < 0.01), bleeding (52% vs 33%, p < 0.01), and mortality (38% vs 25%; p < 0.001) compared to Impella 5.0/5.5 alone. Among Impella 5.0/5.5 recipients, the median duration of pump support was 12.9 days (IQR: 6.8-22.9) and longer in patients bridged to HRT (14 days; IQR: 7.7-28.4). CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-center cohort of patients with CS, use of Impella 5.0/5.5 was associated with an overall survival of 67.1% and high rates of HRT. Lower adverse event rates were observed when Impella 5.0/5.5 was the sole support device used. Further study is required to determine whether a strategy of early Impella 5.0/5.5 use for CS improves survival. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: High capacity Impella heart pumps are capable of provide up to 5.5 liter/min of flow while upper body surgical placement allows for ambulation. Patients with advanced cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction or heart failure requiring temporary mechanical circulatory support may benefit from upfront use of Impella 5.5 to improve overall survival, including native heart recovery or successful bridge to durable left ventricular assist device surgery or heart transplantation.

Factors associated with acute limb ischemia in cardiogenic shock and downstream clinical outcomes: Insights from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data depicting the prevalence and ramifications of acute limb ischemia (ALI) among cardiogenic shock (CS) patients. METHODS: We employed data from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group (CSWG), a consortium including 33 sites. We constructed a multi-variable logistic regression to examine the association between clinical factors and ALI, we generated another logistic regression model to ascertain the association of ALI with mortality. RESULTS: There were 7,070 patients with CS and 399 (5.6%) developed ALI. Patients with ALI were more likely to be female (40.4% vs 29.4%) and have peripheral arterial disease (13.8% vs 8.3%). Stratified by maximum society for cardiovascular angiography & intervention (SCAI) shock stage, the rates of ALI were stage B 0.0%, stage C 1.8%, stage D 4.1%, and stage E 10.3%. Factors associated with higher risk for ALI included: peripheral vascular disease OR 2.24 (95% CI: 1.53-3.23; p < 0.01) and ≥2 mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices OR 1.66 (95% CI: 1.24-2.21, p < 0.01). ALI was highest for venous-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) patients (11.6%) or VA-ECMO+ intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP)/Impella CP (16.6%) yet use of distal perfusion catheters was less than 50%. Mortality was 38.0% for CS patients without ALI but 57.4% for CS patients with ALI. ALI was significantly associated with mortality, adjusted OR 1.40 (95% CI 1.01-1.95, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of ALI was 6% among CS patients. Factors most associated with ALI include peripheral vascular disease and multiple MCS devices. The downstream ramifications of ALI were dire with a considerably higher risk of mortality.

Body Mass Index and Mortality in Cardiogenic Shock.

We explored the association of body mass index (BMI) with mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS). Using the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry, we assessed the impact of BMI on mortality using restricted cubic splines in a multivariable logistic regression model adjusting for age, gender, and race. We also assessed mortality, device use, and complications in BMI categories, defined as underweight (<18.5 kg/m 2 ), normal (18.5-24.9 kg/m 2 ), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m 2 ), obese (30-39.9 kg/m 2 ), and severely obese (>40 kg/m 2 ) using univariable logistic regression models. Our cohort had 3,492 patients with CS (mean age = 62.1 ± 14 years, 69% male), 58.0% HF-related CS (HF-CS), and 27.8% acute myocardial infarction (AMI) related CS. Body mass index was a significant predictor of mortality in multivariable regression using restricted cubic splines ( p < 0.0001, p = 0.194 for nonlinearity). When stratified by categories, patients with healthy weight had lower mortality (29.0%) than obese (35.1%, p = 0.003) or severely obese (36.7%, p = 0.01). In HF-CS cohort, the healthy weight patients had the lowest mortality (21.7%), whereas it was higher in the underweight (37.5%, p = 0.012), obese (29.2%, p = 0.003), and severely obese (29.9%, p = 0.019). There was no difference in mortality among BMI categories in AMI-CS.

Palliative care in the cardiovascular intensive care unit: A systematic review of current literature.

BACKGROUND: There has been an evolution in the disease severity and complexity of patients presenting to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). There are limited data evaluating the role of palliative care in contemporary CICU practice. METHODS: PubMed Central, CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were evaluated for studies on palliative care in adults (≥18 years) admitted with acute cardiovascular conditions - acute myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, advanced heart failure, post-cardiac surgery, spontaneous coronary artery dissection, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, and pulmonary embolism - admitted to the CICU, coronary care unit or cardiovascular intensive care unit from 1/1/2000 to 8/8/2022. The primary outcome of interest was the utilization of palliative care services. Secondary outcomes of included studies were also addressed. Meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity. RESULTS: Of 5711 citations, 30 studies were included. All studies were published in the last seven years and 90 % originated in the United States. Twenty-seven studies (90 %) were retrospective analyses, with a majority from the National Inpatient Sample database. Heart failure was the most frequent diagnosis (47 %), and in-hospital mortality was reported in 67 % of studies. There was heterogeneity in the timing, frequency, and background of the care team that determined palliative care consultation. In two randomized trials, there appeared to be improvement in quality of life without an impact on mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the growing recognition of the role of palliative care, there are limited data on palliative care consultation in the CICU.

The HFSA Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiology Fellowship Consensus Conference.

There is waning interest among cardiology trainees in pursuing an Advanced Heart Failure/Transplant Cardiology (AHFTC) fellowship as evidenced by fewer applicants in the National Resident Matching Program match to this specialty. This trend has generated considerable attention across the heart failure community. In response, the Heart Failure Society of America convened the AHFTC Fellowship Task Force with a charge to develop strategies to increase the value proposition of an AHFTC fellowship. Subsequently, the HFSA sponsored the AHFTC Fellowship Consensus Conference April 26-27, 2023. Before the conference, interviews of 44 expert stakeholders diverse across geography, site of practice (traditional academic medical center or other centers), specialty/area of expertise, sex, and stage of career were conducted virtually. Based on these interviews, potential solutions to address the declining interest in AHFTC fellowship were categorized into five themes: (1) alternative training pathways, (2) regulatory and compensation, (3) educational improvements, (4) exposure and marketing for pipeline development, and (5) quality of life and mental health. These themes provided structure to the deliberations of the AHFTC Fellowship Consensus Conference. The recommendations from the Consensus Conference were subsequently presented to the HFSA Board of Directors to inform strategic plans and interventions. The HFSA Board of Directors later reviewed and approved submission of this document. The purpose of this communication is to provide the HF community with an update summarizing the processes used and concepts that emerged from the work of the HFSA AHFTC Fellowship Task Force and Consensus Conference.

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 Female Sex on Cardiogenic Shock Outcomes: A Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Report.

BACKGROUND: Studies reporting cardiogenic shock (CS) outcomes in women are scarce. OBJECTIVES: The authors compared survival at discharge among women vs men with CS complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) and heart failure (HF-CS). METHODS: The authors analyzed 5,083 CS patients in the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed with the use of baseline characteristics. Logistic regression was performed for log odds of survival. RESULTS: Among 5,083 patients, 1,522 were women (30%), whose mean age was 61.8 ± 15.8 years. There were 30% women and 29.1% men with AMI-CS (P = 0.03). More women presented with de novo HF-CS compared with men (26.2% vs 19.3%; P < 0.001). Before PSM, differences in baseline characteristics and sex-specific outcomes were seen in the HF-CS cohort, with worse survival at discharge (69.9% vs 74.4%; P = 0.009) and a higher rate of maximum Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions stage E (26% vs 21%; P = 0.04) in women than in men. Women were less likely to receive pulmonary artery catheterization (52.9% vs 54.6%; P < 0.001), heart transplantation (6.5% vs 10.3%; P < 0.001), or left ventricular assist device implantation (7.8% vs 10%; P = 0.01). Regardless of CS etiology, women had more vascular complications (8.8% vs 5.7%; P < 0.001), bleeding (7.1% vs 5.2%; P = 0.01), and limb ischemia (6.8% vs 4.5%; P = 0.001). More vascular complications persisted in women after PSM (10.4% women vs 7.4% men; P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Women with HF-CS had worse outcomes and more vascular complications than men with HF-CS. More studies are needed to identify barriers to advanced therapies, decrease complications, and improve outcomes of women with CS.

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).

Clinical Presentation and In-Hospital Trajectory of Heart Failure and Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) remains an understudied distinct clinical entity. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to profile a large cohort of patients with HF-CS focused on practical application of the SCAI (Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions) staging system to define baseline and maximal shock severity, in-hospital management with acute mechanical circulatory support (AMCS), and clinical outcomes. METHODS: The Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry includes patients with CS, regardless of etiology, from 17 clinical sites enrolled between 2016 and 2020. Patients with HF-CS (non-acute myocardial infarction) were analyzed and classified based on clinical presentation, outcomes at discharge, and shock severity defined by SCAI stages. RESULTS: A total of 1,767 patients with HF-CS were included, of whom 349 (19.8%) had de novo HF-CS (DNHF-CS). Patients were more likely to present in SCAI stage C or D and achieve maximum SCAI stage D. Patients with DNHF-CS were more likely to experience in-hospital death and in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and they escalated more rapidly to a maximum achieved SCAI stage, compared to patients with acute-on-chronic HF-CS. In-hospital cardiac arrest was associated with greater in-hospital death regardless of clinical presentation (de novo: 63% vs 21%; acute-on-chronic HF-CS: 65% vs 17%; both P < 0.001). Forty-five percent of HF-CS patients were exposed to at least 1 AMCS device throughout hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: In a large contemporary HF-CS cohort, we identified a greater incidence of in-hospital death and cardiac arrest as well as a more rapid escalation to maximum SCAI stage severity among DNHF-CS. AMCS use in HF-CS was common, with significant heterogeneity among device types. (Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Registry [CSWG]; NCT04682483).

Treatment Intensity for the Management of Cardiogenic Shock: Comparison Between STEMI and Non-STEMI.

Background: Cardiogenic shock is a leading cause of mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Objectives: The authors sought to compare clinical characteristics, hospital trajectory, and drug and device use between patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS) and those without (non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock [NSTEMI-CS]). Methods: We analyzed data from 1,110 adult admissions with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) across 17 centers within Cardiogenic Shock Working Group. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. Results: Our study included 1,110 patients with AMI-CS, of which 731 (65.8%) had STEMI-CS and 379 (34.2%) had NSTEMI-CS. Most patients were male (STEMI-CS: 71.6%, NSTEMI-CS: 66.5%) and White (STEMI-CS: 53.8%, NSTEMI-CS: 64.1%). In-hospital mortality was 41% and was similar among patients with STEMI-CS and NSTEMI-CS (43% vs 39%, P = 0.23). Patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest had higher in-hospital mortality in patients with NSTEMI-CS (63% vs 36%, P = 0.006) as compared to patients with STEMI-CS (52% vs 41%, P = 0.16). Similar results were observed for in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with STEMI-CS (63% vs 33%, P < 0.001) and NSTEMI-CS (60% vs 32%, P < 0.001). Only 27% of patients with STEMI-CS and 12% of NSTEMI-CS received both a drug and temporary mechanical circulatory support device during the first 24 hours, which increased to 78% and 61%, respectively, throughout the course of the hospitalization (P < 0.001 for both). Conclusions: Despite increasing use of inotropic and vasoactive support and mechanical circulatory support throughout the hospitalization, both patients with STEMI-CS and NSTEMI-CS remain at increased risk for in-hospital mortality. Randomized controls trials are needed to elucidate whether timing and sequence of escalation of support improves outcomes in patients with AMI-CS.

Medical Management and Device-Based Therapies in Chronic Heart Failure.

Heart failure (HF) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Major advancements in optimal guideline-directed medical therapy, including novel pharmacological agents, are now available for the treatment of chronic HF including HF with reduced ejection fraction and HF with preserved ejection fraction. Despite these efforts, there are several limitations of medical therapy including but not limited to: delays in implementation and/or initiation; inability to achieve target dosing; tolerability; adherence; and recurrent and chronic costs of care. A significant proportion of patients remain symptomatic with poor HF-related outcomes including rehospitalization, progression of disease, and mortality. Driven by these unmet clinical needs, there has been a significant growth of innovative device-based interventions across all HF phenotypes over the past several decades. This state-of-the-art review will summarize the current landscape of guideline-directed medical therapy for chronic HF, discuss its limitations including barriers to implementation, and review device-based therapies which have established efficacy or demonstrated promise in the management of chronic HF.

Reflecting on the advancements of HFrEF therapies over the last two decades and predicting what is yet to come.

What was once considered a topic best avoided, managing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has become the focus of many drug and device therapies. While the four pillars of guideline-directed medical therapies have successfully reduced heart failure hospitalizations, and some have even impacted cardiovascular mortality in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), patient-reported outcomes have emerged as important endpoints that merit greater emphasis in future studies. The prospect of an oral inotrope seems more probable now as targets for drug therapies have moved from neurohormonal modulation to intracellular mechanisms and direct cardiac myosin stimulation. While we have come a long way in safely providing durable mechanical circulatory support to patients with advanced HFrEF, several percutaneous device therapies have emerged, and many are under investigation. Biomarkers have shown promise in not only improving our ability to diagnose incident heart failure but also our potential to implicate specific pathophysiological pathways. The once-forgotten concept of discordance between pressure and volume, the forgotten splanchnic venous and lymphatic compartments, have all emerged as promising targets for diagnosing and treating heart failure in the not-so-distant future. The increase in heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (CS) has revived interest in defining optimal perfusion targets and designing RCTs in CS. Rapid developments in remote monitoring, telemedicine, and artificial intelligence promise to change the face of heart failure care. In this state-of-the-art review, we reminisce about the past, highlight the present, and predict what might be the future of HFrEF therapies.