Transradial access in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Stratified analysis by shock severity.

BACKGROUND: Transradial access (TRA) is associated with improved survival and reduced vascular complications in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Limited data exist regarding TRA utilization and outcomes for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). We sought to assess the safety, feasibility, and clinical outcomes of TRA in AMI-CS. METHODS: One-hundred and fifty-three patients with AMI-CS were stratified into tertiles of disease severity using the CardShock score. The primary endpoint was successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), defined as Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction III flow with survival to 30 days. RESULTS: Mean age was 66 years, 72% were men, and 47% had diabetes. TRA was the preferred access site in patients with low and intermediate disease severity. Overall, 50 (32%) patients experienced major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events; most events (78%) occurred in patients undergoing transfemoral access (TFA) in the intermediate-high tertiles of CS severity. Of the 41 (27%) total bleeding events, 32% occurred at the coronary angiography access site, of which 92% were in the TFA group. The use of ultrasound (US) guidance for TFA resulted in reduced coronary access-site bleeding (8.5 vs. 33.0%, p = .01). In a hierarchical logistic regression model, utilizing TRA did not result in lower odds of successful PCI (Odds ratio [OR]: 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54-3.40). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that TRA is feasible across the entire spectrum of AMI-CS and is associated with reduced coronary access-site bleeding. In addition, US-guided TFA is associated with reductions in access-site bleeding and vascular complications. Concerted efforts should be made to incorporate vascular access protocols into existing CS algorithms in dedicated shock care centers.

Guideline-directed medical therapy implementation during hospitalization for cardiogenic shock.

AIMS: Despite significant morbidity and mortality, recent advances in cardiogenic shock (CS) management have been associated with increased survival. However, little is known regarding the management of patients who survive CS with heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFrEF), and the utilization of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in these patients has not been well described. To fill this gap, we investigated the use of GDMT during an admission for CS and short-term outcomes using the Inova single-centre shock registry. METHODS: We investigated the implementation of GDMT for patients who survived an admission for CS with HFrEF using data from our single-centre shock registry from January 2017 to December 2019. Baseline characteristics, discharge clinical status, data on GDMT utilization and 30 day, 6 month and 12 month patient outcomes were collected by retrospective chart review. RESULTS: Among 520 patients hospitalized for CS during the study period, 185 (35.6%) had HFrEF upon survival to discharge. The median age was 64 years [interquartile range (IQR) 56, 70], 72% (n = 133) were male, 22% (n = 40) were Black and 7% (n = 12) were Hispanic. Forty-one per cent of patients (n = 76) presented with shock related to acute myocardial infarction (AMI), while 59% (n = 109) had HF-related CS (HF-CS). The median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 7, 18). At discharge, the proportions of patients on beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs)/angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) were 78% (n = 144), 58% (n = 107) and 55% (n = 101), respectively. Utilization of three-drug GDMT was 33.0% (n = 61). Ten per cent of CS survivors with HFrEF (n = 19) were not prescribed any component of GDMT at discharge. Multivariable logistic regression adjusted for baseline GDMT use revealed that patients with lower LVEF and those who transferred to our centre from an outside hospital were more likely to experience GDMT addition (P < 0.05). Patients prescribed at least one additional class of GDMT during admission had higher odds of 6 month and 1 year survival (P < 0.01): On average, 6 month survival odds were 7.1 times greater [confidence interval (CI) 1.9, 28.5] and 1 year survival odds were 6.0 times greater than those who did not have at least one GDMT added (CI 1.9, 20.5). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients who survived CS admission with HFrEF in this single-centre CS registry were not prescribed all classes or goal doses of GDMT at hospital discharge. These findings highlight an urgent need to augment multidisciplinary efforts to enhance the post-discharge medical management and outcomes of patients who survive CS with HFrEF.

Contemporary approach to cardiogenic shock care: a state-of-the-art review.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a time-sensitive and hemodynamically complex syndrome with a broad spectrum of etiologies and clinical presentations. Despite contemporary therapies, CS continues to maintain high morbidity and mortality ranging from 35 to 50%. More recently, burgeoning observational research in this field aimed at enhancing the early recognition and characterization of the shock state through standardized team-based protocols, comprehensive hemodynamic profiling, and tailored and selective utilization of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices has been associated with improved outcomes. In this narrative review, we discuss the pathophysiology of CS, novel phenotypes, evolving definitions and staging systems, currently available pharmacologic and device-based therapies, standardized, team-based management protocols, and regionalized systems-of-care aimed at improving shock outcomes. We also explore opportunities for fertile investigation through randomized and non-randomized studies to address the prevailing knowledge gaps that will be critical to improving long-term outcomes.

Sex-Related Differences in Patient Characteristics, Hemodynamics, and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock: INOVA-SHOCK Registry.

Background: Little is known about sex-related differences in outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) treated within a standardized team-based approach (STBA). Methods: We evaluated 520 consecutive patients (151 women and 369 men) with CS due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF) in a single-center registry (January 2017-December 2019) and examined outcomes according to sex and CS phenotype. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events, 30-day mortality, major bleeding, vascular complications, and stroke. Results: Women with AMI-CS had higher baseline acuity (CardShock score: female [F]: 5.5 vs male [M]: 4.0; P = .04). Women with HF-CS more often presented with cardiac arrest (F: 12.4% vs M: 2.4%; P< .01) and had higher rates of vasopressor use (F: 70.8% vs M: 58.0%; P = .04) and mechanical circulatory support (F: 46.1% vs M: 32.5%; P = .04). There were no sex-related differences in in-hospital mortality for AMI-CS (F: 45.2% vs M: 36.9%; P = .28) and HF-CS (F: 28.1% vs M: 24.5%; P = .56). Women with HF-CS experienced higher rates of major bleeding (F: 25.8% vs M: 13.7%; P = .02) and vascular complications (F: 15.7% vs M: 6.1%; P = .01). However, female sex was not an independent predictor of these complications. No sex differences in survival were noted at 1 year. Conclusions: Within an STBA, although women with AMI-CS and HF-CS presented with higher acuity, they experienced similar in-hospital mortality, major adverse cardiac events, 30-day mortality, stroke, and 30-day readmissions as men. Further research is needed to better understand the extent to which historical differences in CS outcomes can be mitigated by an STBA.

Agreement Between the TEG 6s and TEG 5000 Analyzers in Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

Thromboelastography (TEG) evaluates viscoelastic properties of blood clot formation. The TEG 5000 analyzer is commonly used but prone to errors related to vibration or operator error. The TEG 6s was developed to overcome these limitations. Performance of TEG 6s compared with TEG 5000 has not been reported in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We compared the agreement between devices via a single-center prospective observational study in hospitalized adult patients on ECMO. Data for both devices were collected daily for 3 days after ECMO initiation. Standard tests for method comparison were used. Thirty-four matching samples were available for analysis. Minimal bias was noted; however, the limit of agreement was wide for TEG parameters. Visually, agreement was better for values within the reference ranges of the tests. Lin's coefficients demonstrated moderate correlation for reaction time and alpha angle (0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.76 and 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40-0.78, respectively). Excellent correlation was demonstrated for kinetic time and maximum amplitude (0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.94 and 0.89; 95% CI, 0.79-0.94). The TEG 6s device may represent an acceptable surrogate for the TEG 5000 in patients on ECMO. However, limitations in reliability were noted, and the devices may not be interchangeable when results fall outside of the reference values.

A Standardized and Regionalized Network of Care for Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of standardized care for cardiogenic shock (CS) across regional care networks are poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: The authors compared the management and outcomes of CS patients initially presenting to hub versus spoke hospitals within a regional care network. METHODS: The authors stratified consecutive patients enrolled in their CS registry (January 2017 to December 2019) by presentation to a spoke versus the hub hospital. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included bleeding, stroke, or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. RESULTS: Of 520 CS patients, 286 (55%) initially presented to 34 spoke hospitals. No difference in mean age (62 years vs 61 years; P = 0.38), sex (25% vs 32% women; P = 0.10), and race (54% vs 52% white; P = 0.82) between spoke and hub patients was noted. Spoke patients more often presented with acute myocardial infarction (50% vs 32%; P < 0.01), received vasopressors (74% vs 66%; P = 0.04), and intra-aortic balloon pumps (88% vs 37%; P < 0.01). Hub patients were more often supported with percutaneous ventricular assist devices (44% vs 11%; P < 0.01) and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (13% vs 0%; P < 0.01). Initial presentation to a spoke was not associated with increased risk-adjusted 30-day mortality (adjusted OR: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.49-1.55]; P = 0.64), bleeding (adjusted OR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.49-1.62]; P = 0.70), stroke (adjusted OR: 0.74 [95% CI: 0.31-1.75]; P = 0.49), or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (adjusted OR 0.83 [95% CI: 0.50-1.35]; P = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Spoke and hub patients experienced similar short-term outcomes within a regionalized CS network. The optimal strategy to promote standardized care and improved outcomes across regional CS networks merits further investigation.

Cardiogenic Shock From Heart Failure Versus Acute Myocardial Infarction: Clinical Characteristics, Hospital Course, and 1-Year Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about clinical characteristics, hospital course, and longitudinal outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) related to heart failure (HF-CS) compared to acute myocardial infarction (AMI; CS related to AMI [AMI-CS]). METHODS: We examined in-hospital and 1-year outcomes of 520 (219 AMI-CS, 301 HF-CS) consecutive patients with CS (January 3, 2017-December 31, 2019) in a single-center registry. RESULTS: Mean age was 61.5±13.5 years, 71% were male, 22% were Black patients, and 63% had chronic kidney disease. The HF-CS cohort was younger (58.5 versus 65.6 years, P<0.001), had fewer cardiac arrests (15.9% versus 35.2%, P<0.001), less vasopressor utilization (61.8% versus 82.2%, P<0.001), higher pulmonary artery pulsatility index (2.14 versus 1.51, P<0.01), lower cardiac power output (0.64 versus 0.77 W, P<0.01) and higher pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (25.4 versus 22.2 mm Hg, P<0.001) than patients with AMI-CS. Patients with HF-CS received less temporary mechanical circulatory support (34.9% versus 76.3% P<0.001) and experienced lower rates of major bleeding (17.3% versus 26.0%, P=0.02) and in-hospital mortality (23.9% versus 39.3%, P<0.001). Postdischarge, 133 AMI-CS and 229 patients with HF-CS experienced similar rates of 30-day readmission (19.5% versus 24.5%, P=0.30) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (23.3% versus 28.8%, P=0.45). Patients with HF-CS had lower 1-year mortality (n=123, 42.6%) compared to the patients with AMI-CS (n=110, 52.9%, P=0.03). Cumulative 1-year mortality was also lower in patients with HF-CS (log-rank test, P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HF-CS were younger, and despite lower cardiac power output and higher pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, less likely to receive vasopressors or temporary mechanical circulatory support. Although patients with HF-CS had lower in-hospital and 1-year mortality, both cohorts experienced similarly high rates of postdischarge major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and 30-day readmission, highlighting that both cohorts warrant careful long-term follow-up. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03378739.

Standardized Team-Based Care for Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a multifactorial, hemodynamically complex syndrome associated with high mortality. Despite advances in reperfusion and mechanical circulatory support, management remains highly variable and outcomes poor. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated whether a standardized team-based approach can improve outcomes in CS and whether a risk score can guide clinical decision making. METHODS: A total of 204 consecutive patients with CS were identified. CS etiology, patient demographic characteristics, right heart catheterization, mechanical circulatory support use, and survival were determined. Cardiac power output (CPO) and pulmonary arterial pulsatility index (PAPi) were measured at baseline and 24 h after the CS diagnosis. Thresholds at 24 h for lactate (<3.0 mg/dl), CPO (>0.6 W), and PAPi (>1.0) were determined. Using logistic regression analysis, a validated risk stratification score was developed. RESULTS: Compared with 30-day survival of 47% in 2016, 30-day survival in 2017 and 2018 increased to 57.9% and 76.6%, respectively (p < 0.01). Independent predictors of 30-day mortality were age ≥71 years, diabetes mellitus, dialysis, ≥36 h of vasopressor use at time of diagnosis, lactate levels ≥3.0 mg/dl, CPO <0.6 W, and PAPi <1.0 at 24 h after diagnosis and implementation of therapies. Either 1 or 2 points were assigned to each variable, and a 3-category risk score was determined: 0 to 1 (low), 2 to 4 (moderate), and ≥5 (high). CONCLUSIONS: This observational study suggests that a standardized team-based approach may improve CS outcomes. A score incorporating demographic, laboratory, and hemodynamic data may be used to quantify risk and guide clinical decision-making for all phenotypes of CS.