RESUMO
Despite increasing prevalence in critical care units, cardiogenic shock related to HF (HF-CS) is incompletely understood and distinct from acute myocardial infarction related CS. This review highlights the pathophysiology, evaluation, and contemporary management of HF-CS.
Assuntos
Insuficiência Cardíaca , Infarto do Miocárdio , Insuficiência Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Insuficiência Cardíaca/epidemiologia , Insuficiência Cardíaca/etiologia , Hemodinâmica , Humanos , Choque Cardiogênico/diagnóstico , Choque Cardiogênico/etiologia , Choque Cardiogênico/terapiaRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Infarto do Miocárdio , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea , Idoso , Artéria Femoral/diagnóstico por imagem , Humanos , Masculino , Infarto do Miocárdio/complicações , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/efeitos adversos , Artéria Radial/diagnóstico por imagem , Choque Cardiogênico/diagnóstico , Choque Cardiogênico/etiologia , Choque Cardiogênico/terapia , Resultado do TratamentoAssuntos
Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Miocardite , SARS-CoV-2/metabolismo , Vacinação/efeitos adversos , Vacina de mRNA-1273 contra 2019-nCoV , Adulto , COVID-19/sangue , COVID-19/diagnóstico por imagem , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Vacinas contra COVID-19/administração & dosagem , Humanos , Masculino , Miocardite/sangue , Miocardite/induzido quimicamente , Miocardite/diagnóstico por imagem , Miocardite/fisiopatologiaRESUMO
Heart failure (HF) represents a worldwide health burden and the annual per patient cost to treat HF in the US is estimated at $24,383, with most of this expense driven by HF related hospitalizations. Decompensated HF is a leading cause for hospital admissions and is associated with an increased risk of subsequent morbidity and mortality. Many hospital admissions for decompensated HF are considered preventable with timely recognition and effective intervention.Systems of care that include interventions to facilitate early recognition, timely and appropriate intervention, intensification of care, and optimization to prevent recurrence can help successfully manage decompensated HF in the ambulatory setting and avoid hospitalization.
RESUMO
Guideline-directed medical therapy utilization in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains low despite benefits in morbidity and mortality. The authors describe a unique quality improvement initiative designed to increase angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) utilization in outpatients with HFrEF in a large cardiology practice, whereby eligible patients were identified in a standardized review process and medication utilization rates were linked to group quality metrics. Eligible HFrEF patients were defined as having a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40% and NYHA functional class II to IV level of symptoms. Those with an LVEF >40%, no documented LVEF, or with NYHA functional class I symptoms were excluded. ARNI utilization was defined as any dose of sacubitril/valsartan prescribed, and MRA utilization was defined as any dose of either spironolactone or eplerenone prescribed. Group quality metric targets were set at >25% ARNI prescription and >60% MRA prescription in eligible patients. Following project implementation, ARNI utilization rose from 31% to 67% and MRA increased from 28% to 66%. Establishing clear quality metrics and formulating a proactive evaluation process was associated with a significant increase in prescription rates.
Assuntos
Aminobutiratos , Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina , Compostos de Bifenilo , Insuficiência Cardíaca , Antagonistas de Receptores de Mineralocorticoides , Neprilisina , Volume Sistólico , Valsartana , Humanos , Insuficiência Cardíaca/tratamento farmacológico , Insuficiência Cardíaca/fisiopatologia , Volume Sistólico/fisiologia , Antagonistas de Receptores de Mineralocorticoides/uso terapêutico , Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina/uso terapêutico , Aminobutiratos/uso terapêutico , Compostos de Bifenilo/uso terapêutico , Neprilisina/antagonistas & inibidores , Combinação de Medicamentos , Masculino , Feminino , Melhoria de Qualidade , Espironolactona/uso terapêutico , Idoso , Tetrazóis/uso terapêutico , Eplerenona/uso terapêutico , Pessoa de Meia-IdadeRESUMO
More than 1 million transcatheter-based cardiovascular procedures across the spectrum of interventional cardiology are performed annually in the United States. With the expanded indications for and increased complexities associated with these procedures, interventional cardiologists are expected to possess the requisite expertise to complete these interventions safely and effectively. While the art of vascular access and closure remains a prerequisite and critical skillset in contemporary practice, there remain significant variations in the techniques employed, resulting in the bleeding and vascular complications encountered in clinical practice. With an increasing recognition of the potential merits to standardized approaches to vascular access and closure, cardiovascular societies have put forth recommendations around best practices for performing these procedures in the cardiac catheterization laboratories. In this review, we aim to: (1) Examine the evolving definitions of bleeding and vascular complications; (2) Review best practices for transradial and transfemoral access and closure, including for large bore procedures; and (3) Highlight knowledge gaps and proposed areas of clinical research pertaining to vascular access which may inform clinical practice and potentially optimize the outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter-based cardiac and vascular interventions.
RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Despite efforts to advance therapies in cardiogenic shock (CS), outcomes remain poor. This is likely due to several factors, including major gaps in our understanding of the pathophysiology, phenotyping of patients, and challenges with conducting adequately powered clinical studies. An unmet need exists for a comprehensive multicentre "all-comers" prospective registry to facilitate characterising contemporary presentation, treatment (in a device-agnostic fashion), and short- and intermediate-term outcomes and quality of life (QOL) of CS patients. METHODS: The Multicenter Collaborative to Enhance Biological Understanding, Quality and Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock (VANQUISH Shock) registry is a prospective observational registry that will study unrestricted adult patients with a primary diagnosis of CS at 4 North American centres with multidisciplinary shock programs. Both acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) and acute heart failure (HF-CS) etiologies will be included, and the registry will be device agnostic and widely inclusive. The primary end point will be survival at 30 days after hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes will include in-hospital adverse events and survival to 6 and 12 months. Patients will also undergo neurologic and health-related QOL assessments with the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) and Short-Form 36 (SF-36) health survey tools before discharge and during follow-up. Serial biospecimens will facilitate biomarker studies. CONCLUSIONS: The VANQUISH Shock registry provides a unique opportunity to study the pathophysiology, contemporary management, clinical course, and outcomes of CS. By capturing detailed and high-quality longitudinal data, the registry will address existing knowledge gaps and serve as a springboard for future mechanistic clinical studies to advance the field.
Assuntos
Produtos Biológicos , Infarto do Miocárdio , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Humanos , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto , Infarto do Miocárdio/diagnóstico , Infarto do Miocárdio/epidemiologia , Infarto do Miocárdio/terapia , Estudos Observacionais como Assunto , Qualidade de Vida , Sistema de Registros , Choque Cardiogênico/etiologia , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Insuficiência Cardíaca , Coração Auxiliar , Infarto do Miocárdio , Acidente Vascular Cerebral , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Infarto do Miocárdio/terapia , Choque Cardiogênico/terapia , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/epidemiologia , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/terapiaRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Insuficiência Cardíaca , Infarto do Miocárdio , Assistência ao Convalescente , Idoso , Feminino , Insuficiência Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Insuficiência Cardíaca/terapia , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Hospitais , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Infarto do Miocárdio/complicações , Infarto do Miocárdio/terapia , Alta do Paciente , Choque Cardiogênico/diagnóstico , Choque Cardiogênico/terapiaRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Designated cross-specialty shock teams have been proposed as a mechanism to manage the complexity of decision-making and facilitate collaborative, patient-centred care-planning in cardiogenic shock. Observational data support the notion that shock protocols and teams may improve survival, but there is an absence of data interrogating how clinicians engage with and value the shock team paradigm. This study sought to explore clinician perceptions of the value of the shock call system on decision making and the management of CGS. MATERIALS & METHODS: A descriptive qualitative approach was used. A focus group, semi-structured interview was conducted with twelve cross-specialty members of a shock team at a single tertiary cardiac centre in the UK. The focus group was audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed to capture and describe the clinicians' experience and perceptions of shock team discussions. RESULTS: Eight cardiac intensivists, two heart failure cardiologists, one cardiothoracic surgeon and one interventional cardiologist participated in the focus group. Four key themes were identified from the discussions: supportive decision making; team communication; governance and learning; and future directions. CONCLUSION: This study supports the notion that cross-specialty, real-time patient discussion may provide added value beyond protocolised decision making and account for the complexities of managing patients in a field where definitive, high-quality evidence to guide practice is currently limited.
Assuntos
Cardiologistas , Choque Cardiogênico , Comunicação , Humanos , Percepção , Choque Cardiogênico/diagnóstico , Choque Cardiogênico/terapiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Current practice in cardiogenic shock is guided by expert opinion in guidelines and scientific statements from professional societies with limited high quality randomized trial data to inform optimal patient management. An international panel conducted a modified Delphi process with the intent of identifying aspects of cardiogenic shock care where there was uncertainty regarding optimal patient management. METHODS: An 18-person multidisciplinary panel comprising international experts was convened. A modified RAND/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness methodology was used. A survey comprising 70 statements was completed. Participants anonymously rated the appropriateness of each statement on a scale of 1 to 9: 1 to 3 inappropriate, 4 to 6 uncertain, and 7 to 9 appropriate. A summary of the results was discussed as a group, and the survey was iterated and completed again before final analysis. RESULTS: There was broad alignment with current international guidelines and consensus statements. Overall, 44 statements were rated as appropriate, 19 as uncertain, and 7 as inappropriate. There was no disagreement with a disagreement index <1 for all statements. Routine fluid administration was deemed to be inappropriate. Areas of uncertainty focused panel on pre-PCI interventions, the use of right heart catheterization to guide management, routine use of left ventricular unloading strategies, and markers of futility when considering escalation to mechanical circulatory support. CONCLUSIONS: While there was broad alignment with current guidance, an expert panel found several aspects of care where there was clinical equipoise, further highlighting the need for randomized controlled trials to better guide patient management and decision making in cardiogenic shock.
Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto , Insuficiência Cardíaca/terapia , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea , Choque Cardiogênico/terapia , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/normas , Consenso , Insuficiência Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Humanos , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/métodos , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/normas , Choque Cardiogênico/diagnóstico , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
Cardiogenic shock is a hemodynamically complex syndrome characterized by a low cardiac output that often culminates in multiorgan system failure and death. Despite recent advances, clinical outcomes remain poor, with mortality rates exceeding 40%. In the absence of adequately powered randomized controlled trials to guide therapy, best practices for shock management remain nonuniform. Emerging data from North American registries, however, support the use of standardized protocols focused on rapid diagnosis, early intervention, ongoing hemodynamic assessment, and multidisciplinary longitudinal care. In this review, the authors examine the pathophysiology and phenotypes of cardiogenic shock, benefits and limitations of current therapies, and they propose a standardized and team-based treatment algorithm. Lastly, they discuss future research opportunities to address current gaps in clinical knowledge.
Assuntos
Gerenciamento Clínico , Coração Auxiliar , Hemodinâmica/fisiologia , Balão Intra-Aórtico/métodos , Sistema de Registros , Choque Cardiogênico/terapia , Humanos , Choque Cardiogênico/fisiopatologiaRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Equipe de Respostas Rápidas de Hospitais , Choque Cardiogênico/terapia , Idoso , Algoritmos , Protocolos Clínicos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Choque Cardiogênico/mortalidade , Virginia/epidemiologiaRESUMO
Tracheoesophageal fistulas (TEF) are pathologic communications between the esophagus and the trachea or bronchi. The development of a TEF can result from malignant or benign etiologies. A common approach for the treatment of TEFs is the placement of endobronchial and esophageal stents to facilitate healing of the communication. This case report describes the successful treatment of a TEF resulting from calcified mediastinal lymphadenopathy due to a previous Histoplasmosis capsulatum infection. In addition to placement of endobronchial and esophageal stents, the non-healing TEF was treated with ACell (Gentrix®) decellularized porcine urinary bladder matrix to facilitate complete closure of the fistulous tract.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Our institution implemented a protocol known as thoracic enhanced recovery with ambulation after surgery (T-ERAS) in thoracic operations. The objective was early ambulation starting in the postoperative ambulatory care unit. METHODS: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy patients are placed on a chair in the preoperative area and then walked to the operating room. Postoperatively, patients are placed on a chair as soon as possible. Our target ambulation goal was 250 feet within 1 h of extubation. Patients then walk to their hospital room. T-ERAS adoption and outcomes were compared to a pre-T-ERAS period, in addition to the comparing early and late T-ERAS cohorts. RESULTS: Over 6 years, 304 patients on T-ERAS underwent a planned video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy. Median age was 67 years (range 41-87 years). The target goal was achieved in 187 of 304 (61.5%) patients and 277 of 304 (91.1%) patients ambulated 250 feet at any time in the postoperative ambulatory care unit. The T-ERAS period had a median length of stay of 1 day vs 2 days in the pre-T-ERAS period (P < 0.001). There were low rates of pneumonia (2/304, 0.7%), atrial fibrillation (12/304, 4.0%) and no postoperative mortalities for T-ERAS. The target goal was achieved at a greater rate in the late (92/132, 72.0%) versus early (28/75, 37%) T-ERAS cohort. The mean time to ambulation was reduced in the late cohort (46-81 min). CONCLUSIONS: Early postoperative ambulation was feasible and considered key in achieving low morbidity after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy. Adoption of T-ERAS improved over time. Further studies will help define adoptability at other sites and validate impact on improving outcomes.