Extracorporeal Life Support in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is increasingly used in the treatment of infarct-related cardiogenic shock despite a lack of evidence regarding its effect on mortality. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock for whom early revascularization was planned were randomly assigned to receive early ECLS plus usual medical treatment (ECLS group) or usual medical treatment alone (control group). The primary outcome was death from any cause at 30 days. Safety outcomes included bleeding, stroke, and peripheral vascular complications warranting interventional or surgical therapy. RESULTS: A total of 420 patients underwent randomization, and 417 patients were included in final analyses. At 30 days, death from any cause had occurred in 100 of 209 patients (47.8%) in the ECLS group and in 102 of 208 patients (49.0%) in the control group (relative risk, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.19; P = 0.81). The median duration of mechanical ventilation was 7 days (interquartile range, 4 to 12) in the ECLS group and 5 days (interquartile range, 3 to 9) in the control group (median difference, 1 day; 95% CI, 0 to 2). The safety outcome consisting of moderate or severe bleeding occurred in 23.4% of the patients in the ECLS group and in 9.6% of those in the control group (relative risk, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.50 to 3.95); peripheral vascular complications warranting intervention occurred in 11.0% and 3.8%, respectively (relative risk, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.31 to 6.25). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock with planned early revascularization, the risk of death from any cause at the 30-day follow-up was not lower among the patients who received ECLS therapy than among those who received medical therapy alone. (Funded by the Else Kröner Fresenius Foundation and others; ECLS-SHOCK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03637205.).

Scrutinizing the Role of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Has Clinical Practice Outpaced the Evidence?

The use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for temporary mechanical circulatory support in various clinical scenarios has been increasing consistently, despite the lack of sufficient evidence regarding its benefit and safety from adequately powered randomized controlled trials. Although the ARREST trial (Advanced Reperfusion Strategies for Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation) and a secondary analysis of the PRAGUE OHCA trial (Prague Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) provided some evidence in favor of VA-ECMO in the setting of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the INCEPTION trial (Early Initiation of Extracorporeal Life Support in Refractory Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) has not found a relevant improvement of short-term mortality with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In addition, the results of the recently published ECLS-SHOCK trial (Extracorporeal Life Support in Cardiogenic Shock) and ECMO-CS trial (Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock) discourage the routine use of VA-ECMO in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock. Ongoing clinical trials (ANCHOR [Assessment of ECMO in Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock, NCT04184635], REVERSE [Impella CP With VA ECMO for Cardiogenic Shock, NCT03431467], UNLOAD ECMO [Left Ventricular Unloading to Improve Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock Patients on VA-ECMO, NCT05577195], PIONEER [Hemodynamic Support With ECMO and IABP in Elective Complex High-risk PCI, NCT04045873]) may clarify the usefulness of VA-ECMO in specific patient subpopulations and the efficacy of combined mechanical circulatory support strategies. Pending further data to refine patient selection and management recommendations for VA-ECMO, it remains uncertain whether the present usage of this device improves outcomes.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support in infarct-related cardiogenic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials with 6-month follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous active mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are being increasingly used in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMICS) despite conflicting evidence regarding their effect on mortality. We aimed to ascertain the effect of early routine active percutaneous MCS versus control treatment on 6-month all-cause mortality in patients with AMICS. METHODS: In this individual patient data meta-analysis, randomised controlled trials of potential interest were identified, without language restriction, by querying the electronic databases MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov, up to Jan 26, 2024. All randomised trials with 6-month mortality data comparing early routine active MCS (directly in the catheterisation laboratory after randomisation) versus control in patients with AMICS were included. The primary outcome was 6-month all-cause mortality in patients with AMICS treated with early routine active percutaneous MCS versus control, with a focus on device type (loading, such as venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [VA-ECMO] vs unloading) and patient selection. Hazard ratios (HRs) of the primary outcome measure were calculated using Cox regression models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024504295. FINDINGS: Nine reports of randomised controlled trials (n=1114 patients) were evaluated in detail. Overall, four randomised controlled trials (n=611 patients) compared VA-ECMO with a control treatment and five randomised controlled trials (n=503 patients) compared left ventricular unloading devices with a control treatment. Two randomised controlled trials also included patients who did not have AMICS, who were excluded (55 patients [44 who were treated with VA-ECMO and 11 who were treated with a left ventricular unloading device]). The median patient age was 65 years (IQR 57-73); 845 (79·9%) of 1058 patients with data were male and 213 (20·1%) were female. No significant benefit of early unselected MCS use on 6-month mortality was noted (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·74-1·03]; p=0·10). No significant differences were observed for left ventricular unloading devices versus control (0·80 [0·62-1·02]; p=0·075), and loading devices also had no effect on mortality (0·93 [0·75-1·17]; p=0·55). Patients with ST-elevation cardiogenic shock without risk of hypoxic brain injury had a reduction in mortality with MCS use (0·77 [0·61-0·97]; p=0·024). Major bleeding (odds ratio 2·64 [95% CI 1·91-3·65]) and vascular complications (4·43 [2·37-8·26]) were more frequent with MCS use than with control. INTERPRETATION: The use of active MCS devices in patients with AMICS did not reduce 6-month mortality (regardless of the device used) and increased major bleeding and vascular complications. However, patients with ST-elevation cardiogenic shock without risk of hypoxic brain injury had a reduction in mortality after MCS use. Therefore, the use of MCS should be restricted to certain patients only. FUNDING: The Heart Center Leipzig at Leipzig University and the Foundation Institut für Herzinfarktforschung.

Routine Extracorporeal Life Support in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock: 1-Year Results of the ECLS-SHOCK Trial.

Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) has been increasingly used in the treatment of severe infarct-related cardiogenic shock in the last decade. The randomised ECLS-SHOCK trial demonstrated no benefit of early routine use on 30-day all-cause death. We herein present mid-term results. At 1-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, neurologic outcome, recurrent myocardial infarction, repeat revascularisation and rehospitalisations for heart failure between ECLS and usual medical care.

Standardized Definitions for Cardiogenic Shock Research and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: Scientific Expert Panel From the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC).

The Shock Academic Research Consortium is a multi-stakeholder group, including representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies, industry, and payers, convened to develop pragmatic consensus definitions useful for the evaluation of clinical trials enrolling patients with cardiogenic shock, including trials evaluating mechanical circulatory support devices. Several in-person and virtual meetings were convened between 2020 and 2022 to discuss the need for developing the standardized definitions required for evaluation of mechanical circulatory support devices in clinical trials for cardiogenic shock patients. The expert panel identified key concepts and topics by performing literature reviews, including previous clinical trials, while recognizing current challenges and the need to advance evidence-based practice and statistical analysis to support future clinical trials. For each category, a lead (primary) author was assigned to perform a literature search and draft a proposed definition, which was presented to the subgroup. These definitions were further modified after feedback from the expert panel meetings until a consensus was reached. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel recommendations focused on outcome definitions, including efficacy and safety.

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used in patients with cardiogenic shock despite the lack of evidence from adequately powered randomised clinical trials. Three trials reported so far were underpowered to detect a survival benefit; we therefore conducted an individual patient-based meta-analysis to assess the effect of VA-ECMO on 30-day death rate. METHODS: Randomised clinical trials comparing early routine use of VA-ECMO versus optimal medical therapy alone in patients presenting with infarct-related cardiogenic shock were identified by searching MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and trial registries until June 12, 2023. Trials were included if at least all-cause death rate 30 days after in-hospital randomisation was reported and trial investigators agreed to collaborate (ie, providing individual patient data). Odds ratios (ORs) as primary outcome measure were pooled using logistic regression models. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023431258). FINDINGS: Four trials (n=567 patients; 284 VA-ECMO, 283 control) were identified and included. Overall, there was no significant reduction of 30-day death rate with the early use of VA-ECMO (OR 0·93; 95% CI 0·66-1·29). Complication rates were higher with VA-ECMO for major bleeding (OR 2·44; 95% CI 1·55-3·84) and peripheral ischaemic vascular complications (OR 3·53; 95% CI 1·70-7·34). Prespecified subgroup analyses were consistent and did not show any benefit for VA-ECMO (pinteraction ≥0·079). INTERPRETATION: VA-ECMO did not reduce 30-day death rate compared with medical therapy alone in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock, and an increase in major bleeding and vascular complications was observed. A careful review of the indication for VA-ECMO in this setting is warranted. FUNDING: Foundation Institut für Herzinfarktforschung.

Angiography after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest without ST-Segment Elevation.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial infarction is a frequent cause of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. However, the benefits of early coronary angiography and revascularization in resuscitated patients without electrocardiographic evidence of ST-segment elevation are unclear. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 554 patients with successfully resuscitated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of possible coronary origin to undergo either immediate coronary angiography (immediate-angiography group) or initial intensive care assessment with delayed or selective angiography (delayed-angiography group). All the patients had no evidence of ST-segment elevation on postresuscitation electrocardiography. The primary end point was death from any cause at 30 days. Secondary end points included a composite of death from any cause or severe neurologic deficit at 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 530 of 554 patients (95.7%) were included in the primary analysis. At 30 days, 143 of 265 patients (54.0%) in the immediate-angiography group and 122 of 265 patients (46.0%) in the delayed-angiography group had died (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.63; P = 0.06). The composite of death or severe neurologic deficit occurred more frequently in the immediate-angiography group (in 164 of 255 patients [64.3%]) than in the delayed-angiography group (in 138 of 248 patients [55.6%]), for a relative risk of 1.16 (95% CI, 1.00 to 1.34). Values for peak troponin release and for the incidence of moderate or severe bleeding, stroke, and renal-replacement therapy were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resuscitated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation, a strategy of performing immediate angiography provided no benefit over a delayed or selective strategy with respect to the 30-day risk of death from any cause. (Funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research; TOMAHAWK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02750462.).

Identifying the highest risk vascular patients: Insights from the XATOA registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients with coronary and peripheral artery disease (PAD) have a residual risk of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events despite standards of care. Among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or PAD selected for low dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg BID) and aspirin, we sought to determine the highest risk vascular patients. METHODS: Xarelto pluc Acetylsalicylic acid: Treatment patterns and Outcomes in patients with Atherosclerosis (XATOA) is a single-arm registry of CAD and/or PAD patients. All participants were initiated on low dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg BID) and aspirin. We report the incidence risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or major adverse limb events (MALE) and major bleeding. A classification and regression tree analysis determined independent subgroups. RESULTS: Between November 2018 and May 2020, 5,808 participants were enrolled in XATOA; 5,532 were included in the full analysis. The median follow-up (interquartile range) was 462 (371-577) days. The incidence risk per 100 patient-years of MACE or MALE was highest among participants with polyvascular disease (2 or more vascular beds affected, n = 2,889). The incidence risk was 9.16 versus 2.48 per 100 patient-years in polyvascular and nonpolyvascular patients respectively. Other subgroups of high-risk patients included participants 75 years or older, with a history of diabetes, heart failure, or chronic renal insufficiency (CRI). Rates of major bleeding were low overall. A classification and regression tree analysis showed that polyvascular disease was the most dominant factor separating higher from lower risk participants, and this was heightened with CRI or diabetes. CONCLUSION: Patients with polyvascular disease represent a substantial subset of patients in clinical practice and should be prioritized to receive maximal medical therapy including low dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg BID) and aspirin.

Effect of Peripheral Interventions in Patients with Peripheral Artery Disease Receiving Rivaroxaban and Aspirin: Analyses from the XATOA Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) in XATOA receiving dual pathway inhibition (DPI) with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin according to lower extremity revascularisation (LER) history. METHODS: XATOA is an international, multicentre, prospective, single arm registry study. This subanalysis investigated patients with lower extremity PAD according to LER history. Patients with coronary artery disease, PAD, or both, receiving DPI were followed for 12 or more months. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were assessed according to LER history. A time dependency analysis assessed outcomes by time between the most recent LER procedure and the start of DPI. A multivariate analysis assessed the influence of patient characteristics on clinical outcomes. RESULTS: In XATOA (n = 5 532), 2 820 (51.0%) patients had lower extremity PAD, of whom 1 736 (61.6%) had prior LER and 1 084 (38.4%) had no prior LER. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between patients with or without prior LER. A higher proportion of patients with prior LER experienced any treatment emergent clinical events compared with those without prior LER (15.0% vs. 9.4%, respectively), with greater differences observed between incidence rates of limb events, including major adverse limb events (9.06 vs. 4.09 events per 100 patient years, respectively). Similar rates of myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleeding were observed in both subgroups. Clinical event rates were generally higher in patients who had previous LER for six months or less compared with patients who had previous LET for more than six months before starting DPI, regardless of LER type. Multivariate analyses showed that prior LER was predictive of limb events. CONCLUSION: This subanalysis of XATOA found that prior LER was associated with increased rates of limb events, consistent with results of COMPASS and VOYAGER PAD. Rates of bleeding were also low regardless of LER history and consistent with the findings from these trials.

Use of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure in primary care in Germany: the AURORA-HF noninterventional study.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) is the first angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor indicated for symptomatic chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Given most patients with HF in Germany are managed by general practitioners, AURORA-HF investigated the baseline characteristics and 1­year follow-up of patients starting Sac/Val in primary care in Germany. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, observational study, with all treatment decisions independent of participation. The only inclusion criteria were adults (age ≥ 18 years) with symptomatic HFrEF. The study comprised four groups, depending on therapy on entry: initiation of (1) Sac/Val or (2) other HF therapy; and no change in HF regimen that (3) included or (4) did not include Sac/Val. Baseline data were captured for all groups; 1­year follow-up was recorded in groups 1 and 2. RESULTS: Of 1278 patients in the baseline analyses, 513 (40.1%) had newly started Sac/Val (449 [87.5%] completing the 1­year follow-up), 265 (20.7%) had newly started other HF regimens (245, 92.5%) with 1­year follow-up, while 249 with Sac/Val (19.5%) and 251 without Sac/Val (19.6%) patients had unchanged therapies. Patients treated with Sac/Val had a higher New York Heart Association (NYHA) class at baseline and more often a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 35%. The only baseline parameter significantly correlating with Sac/Val discontinuation during the 1­year follow-up was diabetes mellitus (odds ratio: 2.44; 95% confidence interval: 1.14-5.24). In the Sac/Val group, 30.7% of patients were in NYHA class I/II on study entry, improving to 51.0% at 1­year follow-up. In the no Sac/Val group, the corresponding rates of NYHA I and II classes were 49.8% and 58.2%, respectively. The overall adverse event profile of Sac/Val was good, with only 6.0% patients experiencing serious adverse events leading to permanent discontinuation. CONCLUSION: In patients with symptomatic HFrEF treated in primary care, the group in whom Sac/Val was initiated was characterized by a higher NYHA class and lower LVEF compared to patients in whom Sac/Val was not initiated. Sac/Val was well tolerated, with a high proportion completing 1 year of therapy.

The changing spectrum of cardiovascular emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 influenced treatment strategies and behaviors, particularly cardiovascular emergencies, which may have led to cardiovascular collateral damage. This review article covers aspects of the changing spectrum of cardiac emergencies with a focus on acute coronary syndrome rates and cardiovascular mortality and morbidity based on a selected literature review including the most recent comprehensive meta-analyses.

[Prehospital resuscitation : Current status, results and strategies for improvement in Germany]. / Prähospitale Reanimationen : Aktueller Stand, Ergebnisse und Verbesserungsansätze in Deutschland.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is one of the most frequent causes of death in Europe and is associated with a dismal prognosis. The annual incidence in Germany is approximately 100-120 per 100,000 inhabitants (ca. 80,000-100,000 cases). With the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) about 40% of patients have a return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC); however, after OHCA only 15% of patients survive for 30 days and less than 10% survive with no or only minor neurological deficits. Data from the German Resuscitation Register demonstrate that there was no change in the results over the last 15 years, despite all medical innovations, higher rates of coronary interventions, higher use of mechanical support systems and improvement in intensive care treatment. A high proportion of patients with OHCA have a cardiac or coronary cause. As shown by the data from the German Cardiac Arrest Register (G-CAR) an early coronary angiography is often carried out after CPR in Germany; however, in randomized clinical studies an immediate coronary angiography in patients with non-ST segment elevation in the electrocardiogram (ECG) was not associated with an improvement in the prognosis. In large randomized studies the use of mechanical CPR systems and the implantation of mechanical circulatory support devices after OHCA also did not lead to a reduction in mortality. The most important impact factor for the success of CPR is the time interval between collapse and start of CPR, if possible also by bystander resuscitation. Therefore, the focus of efforts for improving CPR should be on increasing the rate of patients with early CPR. Experiences from Denmark and The Netherlands indicate that this can be successful by education and training of the general population, telephone resuscitation and apps for alerting lay persons.

Management of the COVID-19 pandemic in Rhineland-Palatinate hospitals of all levels of care : Results of the COVID-19 Registry RLP.

The COVID-19 pandemic placed a significant burden on the German healthcare system. Based on the experience of severe disease progression of the SARS-CoV­2 infection from neighboring European countries in the early 2020s, with ICU overload and high mortality rates, efforts were made in Germany to increase the capacity of available ICU beds. Subsequently, all documentation and reporting focused on the ICU capacities for COVID-19 patients. It was hypothesized that mainly a few large hospitals provided care for the majority of COVID-19 patients. The COVID-19 Registry RLP of Rhineland-Palatinate documented SARS-CoV­2 inpatients from daily mandatory queries of all hospitals throughout the pandemic from April 2020 to March 2023, distinguishing between patients in ICUs and normal wards. In its 18th Corona Ordinance, the state government required all hospitals to participate in the care of SARS-CoV­2 inpatients. We investigated the participation of hospitals at different levels of care in Rhineland-Palatinate in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nine pandemic waves were documented during the pandemic and exemplary data on the respective pandemic peaks were evaluated. A distinction was made between the burden on hospitals at different levels of care: primary care hospitals, standard care hospitals, specialty hospitals, and maximal care hospitals. Analysis of the data showed that all hospital types participated equally in the care of SARS-CoV-2 patients. The requirement of the Ministry of Health of Rhineland-Palatinate to provide at least 20% of the available capacity was met by all levels of care and there were no disparities between hospitals of different levels of care in the management of the pandemic.Hospitals at all levels of care participated equally in the care of SARS-CoV­2 inpatients and thus contributed significantly to the management of the pandemic in Rhineland-Palatinate.

Current status of antithrombotic therapy and in-hospital outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about current patterns of antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in clinical practice in Germany. METHODS: The RIVA-PCI is a prospective, non-interventional, multicenter study with follow-up until hospital discharge including consecutive patients with AF undergoing PCI. RESULTS: Between January 2018 and March 2020, 1636 patients (elective in 52.6%, non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome [NSTE-ACS] in 39.3%, ST-elevation myocardial infarction in 8.2%) from 51 German hospitals were enrolled in the study. After PCI a dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) consisting of OAC and a P2Y12 inhibitor was given to 66.0%, triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) to 26.0%, dual antiplatelet therapy to 5.5%, and a mono-therapy to 2.5% of the patients. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were given to 82.4% and vitamin K antagonists to 11.5% of the patients. In-hospital events included death in 12 cases (0.7%), myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and ischemic stroke in four (0.2%) patients each, while 2.8% of patients had bleeding complications. The recommended durations for DAT or TAT at discharge were 1 month (1.5%), 3 months (2.1%), 6 months (43.1%), and 12 months (45.6%), with a 6-month course of DAT (47.7%) most often recommended after elective PCI and a 12-month course of DAT (40.1%) after ACS. CONCLUSION: The preferred therapy after PCI in patients with AF is DAT with a NOAC and clopidogrel. In-hospital ischemic and bleeding events were rare. The recommended durations for combination therapy vary considerably.

Adverse events and stroke prevention by interventional left atrial appendage occlusion in patients with low CHA2 DS2 -VASc score-results from the multicenter German LAARGE registry.

BACKGROUND: Interventional left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is routinely performed in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and contraindications to standard anticoagulation. AIMS: We investigated its role in patients at low stroke risk, and compared the effectiveness and safety in patients with low versus high risk. METHODS: LAARGE is a prospective registry depicting the clinical reality of LAAO. LAAO was conducted with different standard commercial devices, and follow-up period was 1 year. Patients with started procedure and documented CHA2 DS2 -VASc score were selected from the whole database. RESULTS: A total of 638 patients from 38 centers were divided into CHA2 DS2 -VASc score ≤2, i.e., low-risk group (10.2%), and >2, i.e., high-risk group (89.8%). The latter had a pronounced cardiovascular risk profile and preceding strokes (0% vs. 23.9%; p < 0.001). Implantation success was consistently high (97.6%), frequencies of intrahospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (0% vs. 0.5%) and other major complications (4.6% vs. 4.0%) were low (each p = not significant [NS]). Numerous moderate complications were also observed in the low-risk patients (12.3% vs. 9.4%; p = NS). Frequencies of nonfatal strokes (0% vs. 0.7%) and severe bleedings (0% vs. 0.7%) were low (each p = NS). In a specific analysis, patients at very high risk of stroke (i.e., CHA2 DS2 -VASc score >4) did not have increased rates of complications or nonfatal strokes in the first year after the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Low-risk patients had no nonfatal strokes and major bleedings within 1 year after hospital discharge but had unexpectedly high rates of moderate procedural complications. The indication in these patients should be strictly defined based on an individual benefit-risk assessment.

The novel cystatin C, lactate, interleukin-6, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (CLIP)-based mortality risk score in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) still reaches excessively high mortality rates. This analysis is aimed to develop a new easily applicable biomarker-based risk score. METHODS AND RESULTS: A biomarker-based risk score for 30-day mortality was developed from 458 patients with CS complicating AMI included in the randomized CULPRIT-SHOCK trial. The selection of relevant predictors and the coefficient estimation for the prognostic model were performed by a penalized multivariate logistic regression analysis. Validation was performed internally, internally externally as well as externally in 163 patients with CS included in the randomized IABP-SHOCK II trial. Blood samples were obtained at randomization. The two trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01927549 and NCT00491036), are closed to new participants, and follow-up is completed. Out of 58 candidate variables, the four strongest predictors for 30-day mortality were included in the CLIP score (cystatin C, lactate, interleukin-6, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). The score was well calibrated and yielded high c-statistics of 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-0.86] in internal validation, 0.82 (95% CI 0.75-0.89) in internal-external (temporal) validation, and 0.73 (95% CI 0.65-0.81) in external validation. Notably, it outperformed the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II and IABP-SHOCK II risk score in prognostication (0.83 vs 0.62; P < 0.001 and 0.83 vs. 0.76; P = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A biomarker-only score for 30-day mortality risk stratification in infarct-related CS was developed, extensively validated and calibrated in a prospective cohort of contemporary patients with CS after AMI. The CLIP score outperformed other clinical scores and may be useful as an early decision tool in CS.

Reperfusion therapies and in-hospital outcomes for ST-elevation myocardial infarction in Europe: the ACVC-EAPCI EORP STEMI Registry of the European Society of Cardiology.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the contemporary use of reperfusion therapy in the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) member and affiliated countries and adherence to ESC clinical practice guidelines in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospective cohort (EURObservational Research Programme STEMI Registry) of hospitalized STEMI patients with symptom onset <24 h in 196 centres across 29 countries. A total of 11 462 patients were enrolled, for whom primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (total cohort frequency: 72.2%, country frequency range 0-100%), fibrinolysis (18.8%; 0-100%), and no reperfusion therapy (9.0%; 0-75%) were performed. Corresponding in-hospital mortality rates from any cause were 3.1%, 4.4%, and 14.1% and overall mortality was 4.4% (country range 2.5-5.9%). Achievement of quality indicators for reperfusion was reported for 92.7% (region range 84.8-97.5%) for the performance of reperfusion therapy of all patients with STEMI <12 h and 54.4% (region range 37.1-70.1%) for timely reperfusion. CONCLUSIONS: The use of reperfusion therapy for STEMI in the ESC member and affiliated countries was high. Primary PCI was the most frequently used treatment and associated total in-hospital mortality was below 5%. However, there was geographic variation in the use of primary PCI, which was associated with differences in in-hospital mortality.

One-Year Outcomes after PCI Strategies in Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with acute myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, and multivessel coronary artery disease, the risk of a composite of death from any cause or severe renal failure leading to renal-replacement therapy at 30 days was found to be lower with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion only than with immediate multivessel PCI. We evaluated clinical outcomes at 1 year. METHODS: We randomly assigned 706 patients to either culprit-lesion-only PCI or immediate multivessel PCI. The results for the primary end point of death or renal-replacement therapy at 30 days have been reported previously. Prespecified secondary end points at 1 year included death from any cause, recurrent myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, rehospitalization for congestive heart failure, the composite of death or recurrent infarction, and the composite of death, recurrent infarction, or rehospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: As reported previously, at 30 days, the primary end point had occurred in 45.9% of the patients in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group and in 55.4% in the multivessel PCI group (P=0.01). At 1 year, death had occurred in 172 of 344 patients (50.0%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group and in 194 of 341 patients (56.9%) in the multivessel PCI group (relative risk, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.01). The rate of recurrent infarction was 1.7% with culprit-lesion-only PCI and 2.1% with multivessel PCI (relative risk, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.29 to 2.50), and the rate of a composite of death or recurrent infarction was 50.9% and 58.4%, respectively (relative risk, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.00). Repeat revascularization occurred more frequently with culprit-lesion-only PCI than with multivessel PCI (in 32.3% of the patients vs. 9.4%; relative risk, 3.44; 95% CI, 2.39 to 4.95), as did rehospitalization for heart failure (5.2% vs. 1.2%; relative risk, 4.46; 95% CI, 1.53 to 13.04). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock, the risk of death or renal-replacement therapy at 30 days was lower with culprit-lesion-only PCI than with immediate multivessel PCI, and mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups at 1 year of follow-up. (Funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Program and others; CULPRIT-SHOCK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927549 .).