Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Cardiovascular Critical Care Society/Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology Clinical Practice Update on Optimal Post Cardiac Arrest and Refractory Cardiac Arrest Patient Care.

Survival to hospital discharge among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is low and important regional differences in treatment practices and survival have been described. Since the 2017 publication of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society's position statement on OHCA care, multiple randomized controlled trials have helped to better define optimal post cardiac arrest care. This working group provides updated guidance on the timing of cardiac catheterization in patients with ST-elevation and without ST-segment elevation, on a revised temperature control strategy targeting normothermia instead of hypothermia, blood pressure, oxygenation, and ventilation parameters, and on the treatment of rhythmic and periodic electroencephalography patterns in patients with a resuscitated OHCA. In addition, prehospital trials have helped craft new expert opinions on antiarrhythmic strategies (amiodarone or lidocaine) and outline the potential role for double sequential defibrillation in patients with refractory cardiac arrest when equipment and training is available. Finally, we advocate for regionalized OHCA care systems with admissions to a hospital capable of integrating their post OHCA care with comprehensive on-site cardiovascular services and provide guidance on the potential role of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with refractory cardiac arrest. We believe that knowledge translation through national harmonization and adoption of contemporary best practices has the potential to improve survival and functional outcomes in the OHCA population.

Off-Hours Presentation, Door-to-Balloon Time, and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Referred for Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

OBJECTIVES: Presentation with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) during off-hours may impact timely reperfusion and clinical outcomes. We investigated the association between off-hours presentation, door-to-balloon time, and in-hospital mortality in patients with STEMI referred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: We included consecutive patients referred for primary PCI at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute between July 2004 and December 2017. The off-hours group included patients presenting on weekends, statutory holidays, or between 18:00 to 07:59 hours on weekdays. The on-hours group included patients presenting between 08:00 and 17:59 hours on weekdays. The primary clinical outcome was the adjusted in-hospital mortality. The primary quality-of-care indicator was door-to-balloon time. RESULTS: A total of 5132 patients were included, with 3152 (61.4%) in the off-hours group and 1980 (38.6%) in the on-hours group. The median door-to-balloon time was longer in the off-hours group compared with the on-hours group (102 minutes vs 77 minutes; P<.001), while the median onset-to-door time was similar (P=.40). There was no difference in the rates of in-hospital mortality (3.5% vs 3.0%; P=.32) or in the adjusted mortality (odds ratio, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-1.8; P=.44) between off-hours and on-hours groups. However, door-to-balloon time was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (P<.01) and off-hours presentation was an independent predictor of longer door-to-balloon time (P<.001), with an excess of 22.1 minutes. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with primary PCI during off-hours had longer door-to-balloon times. Treatment during off-hours was an independent predictor of longer door-to-balloon time and longer door-to-balloon times were associated with higher mortality.

Arrhythmic Events and Mortality in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock on Inotropic Support: Results of the DOREMI Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Inotropic support is widely used in the management of cardiogenic shock (CS). Existing data on the incidence and significance of arrhythmic events in patients with CS on inotropic support is at high risk of bias. METHODS: The Dobutamine Compared to Milrinone (DOREMI) trial randomized patients to receive dobutamine or milrinone in a double-blind fashion. Patients with and without arrhythmic events (defined as arrhythmias requiring intervention or sustained ventricular arrhythmias) were compared to identify factors associated with their occurrence, and to examine their association with in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients (47.9%) had arrhythmic events, occurring equally with dobutamine and milrinone (P = 0.563). The need for vasopressor support at initiation of the inotrope and a history of atrial fibrillation were positively associated with arrhythmic events, whereas predominant right ventricular dysfunction, previous myocardial infarction, and increasing left ventricular ejection fraction were negatively associated with them. Supraventricular arrhythmic events were not associated with mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-1.40; P = 0.879) but were positively associated with resuscitated cardiac arrests and hospital length of stay. Ventricular arrhythmic events were positively associated with mortality (RR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.13-2.43; P = 0.026) and resuscitated cardiac arrests. Arrhythmic events were most often treated with amiodarone (97%) and electrical cardioversion (27%), which were not associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant arrhythmic events occur in approximately one-half of patients with CS treated with dobutamine or milrinone and are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Five factors may help to identify patients most at risk of arrhythmic events.

Milrinone vs Dobutamine for the Management of Cardiogenic Shock: Implications of Renal Function and Injury.

Background: Cardiogenic shock is associated with poor clinical outcomes. There is a paucity of prospective data examining the efficacy and safety of inotropic therapy in patients with cardiogenic shock and renal dysfunction. Objectives: This study sought to examine the treatment effect of milrinone compared to dobutamine in relation to renal function. Methods: In this post hoc analysis of the DOREMI (Milrinone as Compared with Dobutamine in the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock) trial, we examined clinical outcomes with milrinone compared to dobutamine after stratification based on baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 and acute kidney injury (AKI). The primary outcome was the composite of in-hospital death from any cause, resuscitated cardiac arrest, receipt of a cardiac transplant or mechanical circulatory support, nonfatal myocardial infarction, transient ischemic attack or stroke, or initiation of renal replacement therapy. Results: Baseline eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 and AKI were observed in 78 (45%) and 124 (65%) of patients, respectively. The primary outcome and death from any cause occurred in 99 (52%) and 76 (40%) patients, respectively. eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 did not appear to modulate the treatment effect of milrinone compared to dobutamine. In contrast, there was a significant interaction between the treatment effect of milrinone compared to dobutamine and AKI with respect to the primary outcome (P interaction = 0.02) and death (P interaction = 0.04). The interaction was characterized by lower risk of primary outcome and death with milrinone compared to dobutamine in patients without, but not with, AKI. Conclusions: In patients requiring inotropic support for cardiogenic shock, baseline renal dysfunction and AKI are common. A modulating effect of AKI on the relative efficacy of milrinone compared to dobutamine was observed, characterized by attenuation of a potential clinical benefit with milrinone compared to dobutamine in patients who develop AKI.

Inotropes, vasopressors, and mechanical circulatory support for treatment of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the relative efficacy of supportive therapies (inotropes, vasopressors, and mechanical circulatory support [MCS]) for adult patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. SOURCE: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis and searched six databases from inception to December 2021 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We evaluated inotropes, vasopressors, and MCS in separate networks. Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and extraction. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to rate the certainty in findings. The critical outcome of interest was 30-day all-cause mortality. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We included 17 RCTs. Among inotropes (seven RCTs, 1,145 patients), levosimendan probably reduces mortality compared with placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.87; moderate certainty), but primarily in lower severity shock. Milrinone (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.19 to 1.39; low certainty) and dobutamine (OR, 0.67, 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.49; low certainty) may have no effect on mortality compared with placebo. With regard to MCS (eight RCTs, 856 patients), there may be no effect on mortality with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.28; low certainty) or percutaneous MCS (pMCS) (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.98; low certainty), compared with a strategy involving no MCS. Intra-aortic balloon pump use was associated with less major bleeding compared with pMCS. We found only two RCTs evaluating vasopressors, yielding insufficient data for meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review and network meta-analysis indicate that levosimendan reduces mortality compared with placebo among patients with low severity cardiogenic shock. Intra-aortic balloon pump and pMCS had no effect on mortality compared with a strategy of no MCS, but pMCS was associated with higher rates of major bleeding. STUDY REGISTRATION: Center for Open Science ( https://osf.io/ky2gr ); registered 10 November 2020.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Comparer l'efficacité relative des thérapies de soutien (inotropes, vasopresseurs et assistance circulatoire mécanique [ACM]) chez les patients adultes atteints d'un choc cardiogénique compliquant un infarctus aigu du myocarde. SOURCES: Nous avons réalisé une revue systématique et une méta-analyse en réseau et effectué des recherches dans six bases de données depuis leur création jusqu'à décembre 2021 pour en tirer les études randomisées contrôlées (ERC). Nous avons évalué les inotropes, les vasopresseurs et les ACM dans des réseaux distincts. Deux réviseurs ont effectué la recherche, l'évaluation du texte intégral et l'extraction. Nous avons utilisé le système de notation GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) pour évaluer la certitude des résultats. Le critère d'évaluation d'intérêt était la mortalité toutes causes confondues à 30 jours. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Nous avons inclus 17 ERC. Parmi les inotropes (sept ERC, 1145 patients), le lévosimendan a probablement réduit la mortalité par rapport au placebo (rapport de cotes [RC], 0,53; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 0,33 à 0,87; certitude modérée), mais principalement en cas de choc de sévérité moindre. La milrinone (RC, 0,52; IC 95 %, 0,19 à 1,39; certitude faible) et la dobutamine (RC, 0,67, IC 95 %, 0,30 à 1,49; certitude faible) pourraient n'avoir aucun effet sur la mortalité par rapport au placebo. En ce qui concerne l'ACM (huit ERC, 856 patients), il pourrait n'y avoir aucun effet sur la mortalité avec un ballon intra-aortique (IABP) (RC, 0,94; IC 95 %, 0,69 à 1,28; certitude faible) ou un ACM percutané (ACMp) (RC, 0,96; IC 95 %, 0,47 à 1,98; certitude faible), par rapport à une stratégie sans ACM. L'utilisation d'un ballon intra-aortique était associée à moins de saignements majeurs par rapport à une ACMp. Nous n'avons trouvé que deux ERC évaluant les vasopresseurs, ce qui n'a pas fourni suffisamment de données pour la méta-analyse. CONCLUSION: Les résultats de cette revue systématique et de la méta-analyse en réseau indiquent que le lévosimendan réduit la mortalité par rapport au placebo chez les patients présentant un choc cardiogénique de faible gravité. Le ballon intra-aortique et l'ACMp n'ont eu aucun effet sur la mortalité par rapport à une stratégie sans ACM, mais l'ACMp était associée à des taux plus élevés de saignements majeurs. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: Center for Open Science ( https://osf.io/ky2gr ); enregistrée le 10 novembre 2020.

Inhaled anaesthesia compared with conventional sedation in post cardiac arrest patients undergoing temperature control: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Patients admitted with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) following out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) are often sedated to facilitate care. Volatile anaesthetics have been proposed as alternative sedatives because of their rapid offset. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the use of volatile anaesthetics to conventional sedation in this population. MATERIALS: We searched four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Scopus) from inception to January 6, 2022. We included randomized trials and observational studies evaluating patients admitted following ROSC. We pooled data and reported summary estimates using odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Of 1,973 citations, we included three observational studies (n = 604 patients). Compared to conventional sedation, volatile agents had an uncertain effect on delirium (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68-1.37), survival to discharge (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.17-2.61), and ICU length of stay (MD 1.59 days fewer, 95% CI 1.17-4.36, all very low certainty). Patients who received volatile anaesthetic underwent a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 37.32 hours shorter, 95% CI 7.74-66.90), however this was based on low-certainty evidence. No harms were described with use of volatile anesthetics. CONCLUSION: Volatile anaesthetics may be associated with a decreased duration of mechanical ventilation in patients admitted with ROSC however this is based on low-certainty evidence. Further data are needed to assess their role in this population.

Determinants of long-term dual antiplatelet therapy use in post myocardial infarction patients: Insights from the TIGRIS registry.

BACKGROUND: Patterns of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) use beyond 1 year post-myocardial infarction (MI) have not been well studied. METHODS: TIGRIS (NCT01866904) was a prospective, multi-center (369 centers in 24 countries), observational study of patients 1 to 3 years post-MI. We sought to identify the prevalence and determinants of DAPT use ≥1 year post-MI in patients enrolled in TIGRIS. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify determinants of DAPT use at 396 days post-MI (365 days plus a 31day overrun period to account for intended DAPT discontinuation at 1 year). Patients treated with an oral anticoagulant were excluded. RESULTS: Of 7708 patients (median age 67 years, women 25%, ST-elevation MI 50%), 39% and 16% were on DAPT at 396 days and 5 years post-MI, respectively. DAPT use at 396 days post-MI was more prevalent in patients <65 years of age, treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (versus coronary artery bypass grafting or medical therapy), and with multivessel disease or a history of angina. Additional clinical determinants of ischemic and/or bleeding events following MI (diabetes, second prior MI, hypertension, peripheral artery disease, heart failure, smoking, and renal insufficiency) were not independently associated with DAPT use at 396 days. There were geographic variations in the use of DAPT at 396 days (p<0.001), with the lowest use in Europe and the highest in Asia and Australia. CONCLUSION: In a contemporary patient cohort, DAPT use beyond 1 year post MI was prevalent and associated with patient and index event characteristics. There were marked geographical variations in DAPT use beyond 1 year post MI.

Modifiable Risk Factors and Residual Risk Following Coronary Revascularization: Insights From a Regionalized Dedicated Follow-Up Clinic.

OBJECTIVE: To ensure compliance with optimal secondary prevention strategies and document the residual risk of patients following revascularization, we established a postrevascularization clinic for risk-factor optimization at 1 year, with outcomes recorded in a web-based registry. Although coronary revascularization can reduce ischemia, medical treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) remains the cornerstone of ongoing risk reduction. While standardized referral pathways and protocols for revascularization are prevalent and well studied, post-revascularization care is often less formalized. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The University of Ottawa Heart Institute is a tertiary-care center providing coronary revascularization services. From 2015 to 2019, data were prospectively recorded in the CAPITAL revascularization registry, and patient-level procedural, clinical, and outcome data are collected in the year following revascularization. Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) was defined as death, myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularization, or cerebrovascular accident. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to evaluate time-to-event data for clinical outcomes by risk-factor management, and comparisons were performed using log-rank tests and reported by hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A cohort of 4147 patients completed 1-year follow-up after revascularization procedure that included 3462 undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), 589 undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), and 96 undergoing both PCI and CABG. In the year following revascularization (median follow-up 13.3 months-interquartile range [IQR]: 11.9-16.5) 11% of patients experienced MACE, with female patients being disproportionately at risk. Moreover, 47.7% of patients had ≥2 risk factors (diabetes, dyslipidemia, overweight, active smoker) at the time of follow-up, with 45.0% of patients with diabetes failing to achieve target hemoglobin (Hb) A1c, 54.8% of smokers continuing to smoke, and 27.1% of patients failing to achieve guideline-directed lipid targets. CONCLUSION: Patients who have undergone revascularization procedures remain at elevated risk for MACE, and inadequately controlled risk factors are prevalent in follow-up. This highlights the need for aggressive secondary prevention strategies and implementation of programs to optimize postrevascularization care.

Outcomes in Patients Stratified by PRECISE-DAPT Versus DAPT Scores After Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.

The optimal length of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains debated. Current guidelines recommend individualized treatment with consideration of risk scores. We sought to evaluate the degree of agreement in treatment recommendations and the ability to predict ischemic and bleeding complications of the PRECISE-DAPT (predicting bleeding complications in patients undergoing stent implantation and subsequent dual antiplatelet therapy) and DAPT scores. Consecutive patients receiving 12 months of DAPT were grouped based on score treatment recommendation at the time of PCI: PRECISE-DAPT prolonged or shortened (PRECISE DAPT <25 vs ≥25) and DAPT prolonged or shortened (DAPT ≥2 vs <2). One-year ischemic and bleeding outcomes were compared for each group. In 451 patients, the PRECISE-DAPT and DAPT score recommendations were concordant in 56.7% of patients (Cohen's kappa for agreement of k = 0.139, 95% confidence interval 0.065 to 0.212). There was no difference in composite major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events between patients with high versus low PRECISE-DAPT or DAPT scores. In patients with a high PRECISE-DAPT score versus a low score, there was an increased incidence of 1-year all-cause mortality (2.13% vs 0%, p = 0.04) and an increase in bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium ≥3a: 17.0% vs 2.8%; p <0.001; Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3b/c and 5: 8.5% vs 1.4%; p = 0.001). There were no differences in rates of mortality or bleeding for patients with high versus low DAPT scores. In conclusion, when applied at the baseline, the PRECISE-DAPT and DAPT scores frequently make discordant DAPT duration recommendations. The PRECISE-DAPT, but not the DAPT score, demonstrated associations with all-cause mortality and bleeding in patients prescribed 12 months of DAPT after PCI.

De-escalation of P2Y12 Inhibitor Use After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: De-escalation from potent platelet P2Y12 inhibitors to clopidogrel is common. Despite having a clinical rationale, non-bleeding-related de-escalation when a lateral change between potent agents is an option may put patients at increased ischemic risk. We set out to define the scope of P2Y12 inhibitor de-escalation in a large clinical registry and evaluate the potential impact of non-bleeding-related de-escalation on clinical outcomes. METHODS: : A retrospective cohort study was performed on consecutive patients in the Cardiovascular Percutaneous Intervention Trial (CAPITAL) registry to identify those who underwent a switch in therapy within 1 year of percutaneous coronary intervention. The de-escalations were categorized as bleeding-related or non-bleeding-related. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events, a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Secondary outcomes included individual components of major adverse cardiovascular events and a safety endpoint of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction bleeding. RESULTS: Of 1854 patients, 209 (11.3%) underwent de-escalation: 24.9% of cases were bleeding-related, 37.8% were non-bleeding-related, and 37.3% were for unknown reasons. All patients with non-bleeding-related de-escalation were switched from ticagrelor to clopidogrel. The primary outcome occurred in 14 (6.7%) patients, of which 50% underwent non-bleeding-related de-escalation (P = 0.430). Among those with non-bleeding-related de-escalation, 7.6% were hospitalized for myocardial infarction, compared to 1.9% and 3.8% among those with a bleeding-related and unknown rationale, respectively (P = 0.293). CONCLUSIONS: De-escalation, particularly non-bleeding-related de-escalation, of P2Y12 inhibitors is common. A substantial proportion of such de-escalation may be avoidable. Given the potential risk of ischemic complications, strategies should be considered to encourage both the upfront use of potent P2Y12 inhibitors and alternative strategies to de-escalation.

CONTEXTE: La désescalade thérapeutique consistant à passer d'un inhibiteur puissant du récepteur plaquettaire P2Y12 au clopidogrel est pratique courante. En dépit de son fondement clinique, la désescalade non liée aux saignements lorsqu'une substitution d'inhibiteurs puissants est possible peut entraîner une augmentation du risque d'ischémie chez les patients. L'objectif de notre étude était d'analyser, dans un vaste registre clinique, l'amplitude du recours à la désescalade à partir d'un inhibiteur du récepteur P2Y12 et d'évaluer les conséquences possibles de la désescalade non liée aux saignements sur les résultats cliniques. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Une étude de cohorte rétrospective a été effectuée sur une série de patients consécutifs inscrits au registre CAPITAL ( Ca rdiovascular P ercutaneous I ntervention T ri al ) afin de recenser ceux qui avaient fait l'objet d'un changement de traitement au cours de l'année suivant leur intervention coronarienne percutanée. Les désescalades ont été classées en deux catégories selon qu'elles étaient liées ou non liées aux saignements. Le critère d'évaluation principal, soit la survenue d'un événement cardiovasculaire indésirable majeur (ECIM), était un critère composite regroupant le décès, l'infarctus du myocarde et l'accident vasculaire cérébral. Les critères d'évaluation secondaires comprenaient chaque composante individuelle du critère composite et un critère d'évaluation de l'innocuité mesuré par le score TIMI (thrombolyse dans l'infarctus du myocarde) relatif aux saignements. RÉSULTATS: Sur 1854 patients, 209 (11,3 %) avaient fait l'objet d'une désescalade, qui était liée aux saignements dans 24,9 % des cas, non liée aux saignements dans 37,8 % des cas et sans raison indiquée dans 37,3 % des cas. Tous les patients ayant fait l'objet d'une désescalade non liée aux saignements étaient passés du ticagrélor au clopidogrel. Le critère d'évaluation principal a été observé chez 14 (6,7 %) patients, dont 50 % avaient fait l'objet d'une désescalade non liée aux saignements (p = 0,430). Parmi les patients ayant fait l'objet d'une désescalade non liée aux saignements, 7,6 % avaient été hospitalisés pour un infarctus du myocarde, comparativement à 1,9 % et 3,8 % des patients chez qui la désescalade était liée aux saignements ou n'avait pas de raison connue, respectivement (p = 0,293). CONCLUSIONS: La désescalade à partir d'inhibiteurs du récepteur P2Y12, et particulièrement la désescalade non liée aux saignements, est pratique courante, alors qu'elle pourrait être évitée dans une proportion élevée de cas. Compte tenu du risque de complications ischémiques d'une telle pratique, des stratégies devraient être envisagées afin d'encourager à la fois le recours dès le départ à des inhibiteurs puissants du récepteur P2Y12 et l'adoption de stratégies de remplacement de la désescalade.

Implications of Myocardial Infarction on Management and Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock.

Background The randomized DOREMI (Dobutamine Compared to Milrinone) clinical trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of milrinone and dobutamine in patients with cardiogenic shock. Whether the results remain consistent when stratified by acute myocardial infarction remains unknown. In this substudy, we sought to evaluate differences in clinical management and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) versus non-AMICS. Methods and Results Patients in cardiogenic shock (n=192) were randomized 1:1 to dobutamine or milrinone. The primary composite end point in this subgroup analysis was all-cause in-hospital mortality, cardiac arrest, non-fatal myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, the need for mechanical circulatory support, or initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) at 30-days. Outcomes were evaluated in patients with (n=65) and without (n=127) AMICS. The primary composite end point was significantly higher in AMICS versus non-AMICS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.21; 95% CI, 1.47-3.30; P=0.0001). The primary end point was driven by increased rates of all-cause mortality, mechanical circulatory support, and RRT. No differences in other secondary outcomes including cardiac arrest or cerebrovascular accident were observed. AMICS remained associated with the primary composite outcome, 30-day mortality, and RRT after adjustment for age, sex, procedural contrast use, multivessel disease, and inotrope type. Conclusions AMI was associated with increased rates of adverse clinical outcomes in cardiogenic shock along with increased rates of mortality and initiation of mechanical circulatory support and RRT. Contrast administration during revascularization likely contributes to increased rates of RRT. Heterogeneity of outcomes in AMICS versus non-AMICS highlights the need to study interventions in specific subgroups of cardiogenic shock. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03207165.

Effect of Moderate vs Mild Therapeutic Hypothermia on Mortality and Neurologic Outcomes in Comatose Survivors of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: The CAPITAL CHILL Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest experience high rates of death and severe neurologic injury. Current guidelines recommend targeted temperature management at 32 °C to 36 °C for 24 hours. However, small studies suggest a potential benefit of targeting lower body temperatures. Objective: To determine whether moderate hypothermia (31 °C), compared with mild hypothermia (34 °C), improves clinical outcomes in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Design, Setting, and Participants: Single-center, double-blind, randomized, clinical superiority trial carried out in a tertiary cardiac care center in eastern Ontario, Canada. A total of 389 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were enrolled between August 4, 2013, and March 20, 2020, with final follow-up on October 15, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to temperature management with a target body temperature of 31 °C (n = 193) or 34 °C (n = 196) for a period of 24 hours. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality or poor neurologic outcome at 180 days. Neurologic outcome was assessed using the Disability Rating Scale, with poor neurologic outcome defined as a score greater than 5 (range, 0-29, with 29 being the worst outcome [vegetative state]). There were 19 secondary outcomes, including mortality at 180 days and length of stay in the intensive care unit. Results: Among 367 patients included in the primary analysis (mean age, 61 years; 69 women [19%]), 366 (99.7%) completed the trial. The primary outcome occurred in 89 of 184 patients (48.4%) in the 31 °C group and in 83 of 183 patients (45.4%) in the 34 °C group (risk difference, 3.0% [95% CI, 7.2%-13.2%]; relative risk, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.86-1.33]; P = .56). Of the 19 secondary outcomes, 18 were not statistically significant. Mortality at 180 days was 43.5% and 41.0% in patients treated with a target temperature of 31 °C and 34 °C, respectively (P = .63). The median length of stay in the intensive care unit was longer in the 31 °C group (10 vs 7 days; P = .004). Among adverse events in the 31 °C group vs the 34 °C group, deep vein thrombosis occurred in 11.4% vs 10.9% and thrombus in the inferior vena cava occurred in 3.8% and 7.7%, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, a target temperature of 31 °C did not significantly reduce the rate of death or poor neurologic outcome at 180 days compared with a target temperature of 34 °C. However, the study may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02011568.

Milrinone as Compared with Dobutamine in the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Although inotropic support is a mainstay of medical therapy for cardiogenic shock, little evidence exists to guide the selection of inotropic agents in clinical practice. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with cardiogenic shock to receive milrinone or dobutamine in a double-blind fashion. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death from any cause, resuscitated cardiac arrest, receipt of a cardiac transplant or mechanical circulatory support, nonfatal myocardial infarction, transient ischemic attack or stroke diagnosed by a neurologist, or initiation of renal replacement therapy. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary composite outcome. RESULTS: A total of 192 participants (96 in each group) were enrolled. The treatment groups did not differ significantly with respect to the primary outcome; a primary outcome event occurred in 47 participants (49%) in the milrinone group and in 52 participants (54%) in the dobutamine group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.19; P = 0.47). There were also no significant differences between the groups with respect to secondary outcomes, including in-hospital death (37% and 43% of the participants, respectively; relative risk, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.21), resuscitated cardiac arrest (7% and 9%; hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.29 to 2.07), receipt of mechanical circulatory support (12% and 15%; hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.71), or initiation of renal replacement therapy (22% and 17%; hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.73 to 2.67). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cardiogenic shock, no significant difference between milrinone and dobutamine was found with respect to the primary composite outcome or important secondary outcomes. (Funded by the Innovation Fund of the Alternative Funding Plan for the Academic Health Sciences Centres of Ontario; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03207165.).

Impact of baseline beta-blocker use on inotrope response and clinical outcomes in cardiogenic shock: a subgroup analysis of the DOREMI trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The impact of beta-blocker (BB) use on patients who develop CS remains unknown. We sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes and hemodynamic response profiles in patients treated with BB in the 24 h prior to the development of CS. METHODS: Patients with CS enrolled in the DObutamine compaREd to MIlrinone trial were analyzed. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, need for cardiac transplant or mechanical circulatory support, non-fatal myocardial infarction, transient ischemic attack or stroke, or initiation of renal replacement therapy. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary composite and hemodynamic response profiles derived from pulmonary artery catheters. RESULTS: Among 192 participants, 93 patients (48%) had received BB therapy. The primary outcome occurred in 47 patients (51%) in the BB group and in 52 (53%) in the no BB group (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.73-1.27; P = 0.78) throughout the in-hospital period. There were fewer early deaths in the BB group (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.18-0.95; P = 0.03). There were no differences in other individual components of the primary outcome or in hemodynamic response between the two groups throughout the remainder of the hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: BB therapy in the 24 h preceding the development of CS did not negatively influence clinical outcomes or hemodynamic parameters. On the contrary, BB use was associated with fewer deaths in the early resuscitation period, suggesting a paradoxically protective effect in patients with CS. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03207165.