[Cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction]. / Infarktbedingter kardiogener Schock.

Cardiogenic shock as a complication of myocardial infarction (5-10%) increases the mortality of uncomplicated myocardial infarction from less than 10% to 40%. This is due to the development of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome triggered by the extensive shock-induced impairment of organ perfusion. Therefore, guideline-based treatment should not only be restricted to reopening of the occluded coronary artery and management of complications of the infarction: important for survival are also guideline-driven optimization of organ perfusion by inotropic and vasoactive substances and, with well-defined indications, by temporary mechanical circulatory support but not by intra-aortic counterpulsation. Equally important, however, are shock-specific intensive care measures to prevent or attenuate organ dysfunction, such as lung protective ventilation in cases where ventilation is obligatory.

Efficacy of telemedical interventional management in patients with heart failure (TIM-HF2): a randomised, controlled, parallel-group, unmasked trial.

BACKGROUND: Remote patient management in patients with heart failure might help to detect early signs and symptoms of cardiac decompensation, thus enabling a prompt initiation of the appropriate treatment and care before a full manifestation of a heart failure decompensation. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of our remote patient management intervention on mortality and morbidity in a well defined heart failure population. METHODS: The Telemedical Interventional Management in Heart Failure II (TIM-HF2) trial was a prospective, randomised, controlled, parallel-group, unmasked (with randomisation concealment), multicentre trial with pragmatic elements introduced for data collection. The trial was done in Germany, and patients were recruited from hospitals and cardiology practices. Eligible patients had heart failure, were in New York Heart Association class II or III, had been admitted to hospital for heart failure within 12 months before randomisation, and had a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 45% or lower (or if higher than 45%, oral diuretics were being prescribed). Patients with major depression were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a secure web-based system to either remote patient management plus usual care or to usual care only and were followed up for a maximum of 393 days. The primary outcome was percentage of days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospital admissions or all-cause death, analysed in the full analysis set. Key secondary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01878630, and has now been completed. FINDINGS: Between Aug 13, 2013, and May 12, 2017, 1571 patients were randomly assigned to remote patient management (n=796) or usual care (n=775). Of these 1571 patients, 765 in the remote patient management group and 773 in the usual care group started their assigned care, and were included in the full analysis set. The percentage of days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospital admissions and all-cause death was 4·88% (95% CI 4·55-5·23) in the remote patient management group and 6·64% (6·19-7·13) in the usual care group (ratio 0·80, 95% CI 0·65-1·00; p=0·0460). Patients assigned to remote patient management lost a mean of 17·8 days (95% CI 16·6-19·1) per year compared with 24·2 days (22·6-26·0) per year for patients assigned to usual care. The all-cause death rate was 7·86 (95% CI 6·14-10·10) per 100 person-years of follow-up in the remote patient management group compared with 11·34 (9·21-13·95) per 100 person-years of follow-up in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70, 95% CI 0·50-0·96; p=0·0280). Cardiovascular mortality was not significantly different between the two groups (HR 0·671, 95% CI 0·45-1·01; p=0·0560). INTERPRETATION: The TIM-HF2 trial suggests that a structured remote patient management intervention, when used in a well defined heart failure population, could reduce the percentage of days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospital admissions and all-cause mortality. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies for the treatment of cardiogenic shock or low cardiac output syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) and low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) as complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF) or cardiac surgery are life-threatening conditions. While there is a broad body of evidence for the treatment of people with acute coronary syndrome under stable haemodynamic conditions, the treatment strategies for people who become haemodynamically unstable or develop CS remain less clear. We have therefore summarised here the evidence on the treatment of people with CS or LCOS with different inotropic agents and vasodilative drugs. This is the first update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess efficacy and safety of cardiac care with positive inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies in people with CS or LCOS due to AMI, HF or cardiac surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CPCI-S Web of Science in June 2017. We also searched four registers of ongoing trials and scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in people with myocardial infarction, heart failure or cardiac surgery complicated by cardiogenic shock or LCOS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 13 eligible studies with 2001 participants (mean or median age range 58 to 73 years) and two ongoing studies. We categorised studies into eight comparisons, all against cardiac care and additional other active drugs or placebo. These comparisons investigated the efficacy of levosimendan versus dobutamine, enoximone or placebo, epinephrine versus norepinephrine-dobutamine, amrinone versus dobutamine, dopexamine versus dopamine, enoximone versus dopamine and nitric oxide versus placebo.All trials were published in peer-reviewed journals, and analysis was done by the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. Twelve of 13 trials were small with few included participants. Acknowledgement of funding by the pharmaceutical industry or missing conflict of interest statements emerged in five of 13 trials. In general, confidence in the results of analysed studies was reduced due to serious study limitations, very serious imprecision or indirectness. Domains of concern, which show a high risk of more than 50%, include performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel) and bias affecting the quality of evidence on adverse events.Levosimendan may reduce short-term mortality compared to a therapy with dobutamine (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95; 6 studies; 1776 participants; low-quality evidence; NNT: 16 (patients with moderate risk), NNT: 5 (patients with CS)). This initial short-term survival benefit with levosimendan vs. dobutamine is not confirmed on long-term follow up. There is uncertainty (due to lack of statistical power) as to the effect of levosimendan compared to therapy with placebo (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.94; 2 studies; 55 participants, very low-quality evidence) or enoximone (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.14; 1 study; 32 participants, very low-quality evidence).All comparisons comparing other positive inotropic, inodilative or vasodilative drugs presented uncertainty on their effect on short-term mortality with very low-quality evidence and based on only one RCT. These single studies compared epinephrine with norepinephrine-dobutamine (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.77; 30 participants), amrinone with dobutamine (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.85; 30 participants), dopexamine with dopamine (no in-hospital deaths from 70 participants), enoximone with dobutamine (two deaths from 40 participants) and nitric oxide with placebo (one death from three participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Apart from low quality of evidence data suggesting a short-term mortality benefit of levosimendan compared with dobutamine, at present there are no robust and convincing data to support a distinct inotropic or vasodilator drug-based therapy as a superior solution to reduce mortality in haemodynamically unstable people with cardiogenic shock or LCOS.Considering the limited evidence derived from the present data due to a generally high risk of bias and imprecision, it should be emphasised that there remains a great need for large, well-designed randomised trials on this topic to close the gap between daily practice in critical care medicine and the available evidence. It seems to be useful to apply the concept of 'early goal-directed therapy' in cardiogenic shock and LCOS with early haemodynamic stabilisation within predefined timelines. Future clinical trials should therefore investigate whether such a therapeutic concept would influence survival rates much more than looking for the 'best' drug for haemodynamic support.

Effect of inflammatory mediators on cardiovascular function.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Inflammatory mediators can interfere with cardiovascular system. This article describes some recent findings in this field. RECENT FINDINGS: In septic cardiomyopathy, direct and indirect interactions of endotoxin with the pacemaker current contribute to cardiac autonomic dysfunction and inadequately high heart rate, worsening prognosis. In myocardial infarction, inflammatory blood cells correlate with impaired coronary microvascular reperfusion. In cardiogenic shock, systemic inflammation and development of multiorgan dysfunction syndrome have a major impact on mortality. Shock patients have low levels of activated protein C and high levels of the endogenous danger signal molecule peroxiredoxin 1; both conditions might represent further therapeutic targets. As major cause of cytopathic hypoxia, mitochondrial dysfunction has also been identified in mitochondria from peripheral blood mononuclear cells in paediatric septic shock. Transcatheter aortic valve endocarditis, a new endocarditis entity after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in old and very old patients, needs our special attention, because immunosenescence may modify the clinical course in a negative sense. Systemic spreading of endocarditis to septic shock adds to the local valve infection the problem of septic shock. SUMMARY: Not only in septic shock, but also in classic heart diseases like cardiogenic shock and endocarditis, the detrimental role of inflammatory mediators becomes more and more evident, whereas effective anti-inflammatory treatment concepts are still missing.

Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) is currently the most commonly used mechanical assist device for patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction. Although there has been only limited evidence from randomised controlled trials, the previous guidelines of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) strongly recommended the use of the IABP in patients with infarction-related cardiogenic shock on the basis of pathophysiological considerations, non-randomised trials and registry data. The recent guidelines downgraded the recommendation based on a meta-analysis which could only include non-randomised trials showing conflicting results. Up to now, there have been no guideline recommendations and no actual meta-analysis including the results of the large randomised multicentre IABP-SHOCK II Trial which showed no survival benefit with IABP support. This systematic review is an update of the review published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate, in terms of efficacy and safety, the effect of IABP versus non-IABP or other assist devices guideline compliant standard therapy on mortality and morbidity in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SEARCH METHODS: Searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE (Ovid), LILACS, IndMed and KoreaMed, registers of ongoing trials and proceedings of conferences were updated in October 2013. Reference lists were scanned and experts in the field contacted to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials on patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data collection and analysis were performed according to the published protocol. Individual patient data were provided for six trials and merged with aggregate data. Summary statistics for the primary endpoints were hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: Seven eligible studies were identified from a total of 2314 references. One new study with 600 patients was added to the original review. Four trials compared IABP to standard treatment and three to other percutaneous left assist devices (LVAD). Data from a total of 790 patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock were included in the updated meta-analysis: 406 patients were treated with IABP and 384 patients served as controls; 339 patients were treated without assisting devices and 45 patients with other LVAD. The HR for all-cause 30-day mortality of 0.95 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.19) provided no evidence for a survival benefit. Different non-fatal cardiovascular events were reported in five trials. During hospitalisation, 11 and 4 out of 364 patients from the intervention groups suffered from reinfarction or stroke, respectively. Altogether 5 out of 363 patients from the control group suffered from reinfarction or stroke. Reocclusion was treated with subsequent re-revascularization in 6 out of 352 patients from the intervention group and 13 out of 353 patients of the control group. The high incidence of complications such as moderate and severe bleeding or infection in the control groups has to be attributed to interventions with other LVAD. Possible reasons for bias were more frequent in small studies with high cross-over rates, early stopping and the inclusion of patients with IABP at randomisation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests that IABP may have a beneficial effect on some haemodynamic parameters. However, this did not result in survival benefits so there is no convincing randomised data to support the use of IABP in infarct-related cardiogenic shock.

Inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock or low cardiac output syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The recently published German-Austrian S3 Guideline for the treatment of infarct related cardiogenic shock (CS) revealed a lack of evidence for all recommended therapeutic measures. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects in terms of efficacy, efficiency and safety of cardiac care with inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies versus placebo or against each other for haemodynamic stabilisation following surgical treatment, interventional therapy (angioplasty, stent implantation) and conservative treatment (that is no revascularization) on mortality and morbidity in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by CS or low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid) and ISI Web of Science, registers of ongoing trials and proceedings of conferences in January 2013. Reference lists were scanned and experts in the field were contacted to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in patients with AMI complicated by CS or LCOS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data collection and analysis were performed according to the published protocol. All trials were analysed individually. Hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted but not pooled because of high heterogeneity between the control group interventions. MAIN RESULTS: Four eligible, very small studies were identified from a total of 4065 references. Three trials with high overall risk of bias compared levosimendan to standard treatment (enoximone or dobutamine) or placebo. Data from a total of 63 participants were included in our comparisons, 31 were treated with levosimendan and 32 served as controls. Levosimendan showed an imprecise survival benefit in comparison with enoximone based on a very small trial with 32 participants (HR 0.33; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.97). Results from the other similarly small trials were too imprecise to provide any meaningful information about the effect of levosimendan in comparison with dobutamine or placebo. Only small differences in haemodynamics, length of hospital stay and the frequency of major adverse cardiac events or adverse events overall were found between study groups.Only one small randomised controlled trial with three participants was found for vasodilator strategies (nitric oxide gas versus placebo) in AMI complicated by CS or LCOS. This study was too small to draw any conclusions on the effects on our key outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present there are no robust and convincing data to support a distinct inotropic or vasodilator drug based therapy as a superior solution to reduce mortality in haemodynamically unstable patients with CS or low cardiac output complicating AMI.

Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in the treatment of infarction-related cardiogenic shock--review of the current evidence.

The European ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) guideline suggested the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) with a recommendation level I and a level of evidence C as an effective measure in combination with balloon angioplasty in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), stent implantation, and inotropic and vasopressor support. Similarly, upon mechanical complication due to myocardial infarction (MI), the guideline suggests that in patients with a ventricular septal defect or in most patients with acute mitral regurgitation, preoperative IABP implantation is indicated for circulatory support. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association STEMI guideline recommends the use of the IABP with a recommendation level I and a level of evidence B if CS does not respond rapidly to pharmacological treatment. The guideline notes that the IABP is a stabilizing measure for angiography and early revascularization. Even in MI complications, the use of preoperative IABP is recommended before surgery. Within this overview, we summarize the current evidence on IABP use in patients with CS complicated by MI. From our Cochrane data analysis, we conclude that in CS due to acute MI (AMI) treated with adjuvant systemic fibrinolysis, the IABP should be implanted. In patients with CS following AMI, treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the IABP can be implanted, although data are not distinctive (i.e., indicating positive and negative effects). In the future, randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the use of IABP in CS patients treated with PCI. When patients with CS are transferred to a PCI center with or without thrombolysis, patients should receive mechanical support with an IABP. To treat mechanical MI complications-in particular ventricular septal defect-patients should be treated with an IABP to stabilize their hemodynamic situation prior to cardiac surgery. Similar recommendations are given in the German Austrian guidelines on treatment of infarction-related CS patients (http://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/019-013.html).

Transcoronary pacing in an animal model : Second coated guidewire versus cutaneous patch as indifferent electrodes.

BACKGROUND: Transcoronary pacing is a seldom used treatment option for unheralded bradycardias in the setting of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). In the present study we compared a coated guidewire inserted proximally into a coronary artery with a cutaneous patch electrode as indifferent electrodes for transcoronary pacing in a porcine model. METHODS: Transcoronary pacing was investigated in 7 adult pigs in an animal catheterization laboratory. A standard guidewire insulated by a monorail-balloon was advanced into the periphery of a coronary artery serving as the cathode. As the indifferent anode, a special guidewire with electrical insulated by a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coating was positioned into the proximal part of the same coronary vessel. Transcoronary pacing parameters (threshold and impedance data and the magnitude of the epicardial electrogram) were compared with unipolar transcoronary pacing using a cutaneous patch electrode. RESULTS: Transcoronary pacing was successful against both indifferent electrodes. Pacing thresholds obtained with the coated guidewire technique (1.8 ± 1.3 V) were similar to those obtained by standard unipolar transcoronary pacing with a cutaneous patch electrode (1.8 ± 1.5 V). The impedance with the additional coated guidewire was 419 ± 144 Ω and thereby slightly higher compared to 320 ± 103 Ω obtained by pacing against the patch electrode (p < 0.05). Both settings yielded comparable R­wave amplitudes (8.0 ± 5.1 mV vs. 7.1 ± 3.6 mV). CONCLUSIONS: A second coated guidewire is as effective as a cutaneous patch electrode when added as an indifferent electrode in transcoronary pacing. This transcoronary pacing technique could replace temporary transvenous pacing in emergency situations during PCI, especially when using the radial approach.

Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) is currently the most commonly used mechanical assist device for patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction.Although there is only limited evidence by randomised controlled trials, the current guidelines of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology and the European Society of Cardiology strongly recommend the use of the intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with infarction-related cardiogenic shock on the basis of pathophysiological considerations as also non-randomised trials and registry data.    OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of IABP versus non-IABP or other assist devices guideline compliant standard therapy, in terms of efficacy and safety, on mortality and morbidity in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, LILACS, IndMed and KoreaMed, registers of ongoing trials and proceedings of conferences were conducted in January 2010, unrestricted by date. Reference lists were scanned and experts in the field contacted to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials on patients with myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data collection and analysis were performed according to a published protocol. Individual patient data were provided for five trials and merged with aggregate data. Summary statistics for the primary endpoints were hazard ratios (HR's) and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Six eligible and two ongoing studies were identified from a total of 1410 references. Three compared IABP to standard treatment and three to percutaneous left assist devices (LVAD). Data from a total of 190 patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock were included in the meta-analysis: 105 patients were treated with IABP and 85 patients served as controls. 40 patients were treated without assisting devices and 45 patients with LVAD. HR's for all-cause 30-day mortality of 1.04 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.73) provides no evidence for a survival benefit. While differences in survival were comparable in patients treated with IABP, with and without LVAD, haemodynamics and incidences of device related complications show heterogeneous results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests that IABP may have a beneficial effect on the haemodynamics, however there is no convincing randomised data to support the use of IABP in infarct related cardiogenic shock.

Intracoronary compared with intravenous bolus abciximab application during primary percutaneous coronary intervention: design and rationale of the Abciximab Intracoronary versus intravenously Drug Application in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (AIDA STEMI) trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous abciximab reduces major adverse cardiac events in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Intracoronary abciximab bolus application during PCI results in high local drug concentration, improved perfusion, reduction of infarct size, and less microvascular obstruction. The hypothesis of this trial is that abciximab bolus intracoronary in comparison to standard intravenous application will improve the outcome of patients undergoing primary PCI in STEMI. STUDY DESIGN: The Abciximab Intracoronary versus intravenously Drug Application in STEMI (AIDA STEMI) study is a 1,912-patient, prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled trial. The study is designed to compare the efficacy and safety of intracoronary versus intravenous bolus abciximab administration during primary PCI with subsequent intravenous infusion for 12 hours. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to 1 of the 2 treatments. The primary efficacy end point of AIDA STEMI is the composite of all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, or new congestive heart failure within 90 days of randomization. The primary safety outcome assessment will be major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: The AIDA STEMI study addresses important questions regarding the efficacy and safety of intracoronary abciximab bolus administration during primary PCI in patients with STEMI, potentially optimizing the route of administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in the catheterization laboratory.