Early Utilization of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: The National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices increase systemic blood pressure and end organ perfusion while reducing cardiac filling pressures. METHODS AND RESULTS: The National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCT03677180) is a single-arm, multicenter study. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of utilizing early MCS with Impella in patients presenting with AMI-CS. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. A total of 406 patients were enrolled at 80 sites between 2016 and 2020. Average age was 64±12 years, 24% were female, 17% had a witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, 27% had in-hospital cardiac arrest, and 9% were under active cardiopulmonary resuscitation during MCS implantation. Patients presented with a mean systolic blood pressure of 77.2±19.2 mm Hg, 85% of patients were on vasopressors or inotropes, mean lactate was 4.8±3.9 mmol/L and cardiac power output was 0.67±0.29 watts. At 24 hours, mean systolic blood pressure improved to 103.9±17.8 mm Hg, lactate to 2.7±2.8 mmol/L, and cardiac power output to 1.0±1.3 watts. Procedural survival, survival to discharge, survival to 30 days, and survival to 1 year were 99%, 71%, 68%, and 53%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Early use of MCS in AMI-CS is feasible across varying health care settings and resulted in improvements to early hemodynamics and perfusion. Survival rates to hospital discharge were high. Given the encouraging results from our analysis, randomized clinical trials are warranted to assess the role of utilizing early MCS, using a standardized, multidisciplinary approach.

Contrast-induced nephropathy and long-term adverse events: cause and effect?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The relationship of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) to long-term adverse events (AEs) is controversial. Although an association with AEs has been previously reported, it is unclear whether CIN is causally related to these AEs. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We obtained long-term (> or =1 yr) follow-up on 294 patients who participated in a randomized, double-blind comparison of two prevention strategies for CIN (iopamidol versus iodixanol). A difference in the incidence of AEs between patients who had developed CIN and those who had not was performed using a chi(2) test and Poisson regression analysis. A similar statistical approach was used for the differences in AEs between those who received iopamidol or iodixanol. Multiple definitions of CIN were used to strengthen and validate the results and conclusions. RESULTS: The rate of long-term AEs was higher in individuals with CIN (all definitions of CIN). After adjustment for baseline comorbidities and risk factors, the adjusted incidence rate ratio for AEs was twice as high in those with CIN. Randomization to iopamidol reduced both the incidence of CIN and AEs. CONCLUSIONS: The parallel decrease in the incidence of CIN and AEs in one arm of this randomized trial supports a causal role for CIN.

Cardiac Angiography in Renally Impaired Patients (CARE) study: a randomized double-blind trial of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: No direct comparisons exist of the renal tolerability of the low-osmolality contrast medium iopamidol with that of the iso-osmolality contrast medium iodixanol in high-risk patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The present study is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind comparison of iopamidol and iodixanol in patients with chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 20 to 59 mL/min) who underwent cardiac angiography or percutaneous coronary interventions. Serum creatinine (SCr) levels and estimated glomerular filtration rate were assessed at baseline and 2 to 5 days after receiving medications. The primary outcome was a postdose SCr increase > or = 0.5 mg/dL (44.2 micromol/L) over baseline. Secondary outcomes were a postdose SCr increase > or = 25%, a postdose estimated glomerular filtration rate decrease of > or = 25%, and the mean peak change in SCr. In 414 patients, contrast volume, presence of diabetes mellitus, use of N-acetylcysteine, mean baseline SCr, and estimated glomerular filtration rate were comparable in the 2 groups. SCr increases > or = 0.5 mg/dL occurred in 4.4% (9 of 204 patients) after iopamidol and 6.7% (14 of 210 patients) after iodixanol (P=0.39), whereas rates of SCr increases > or = 25% were 9.8% and 12.4%, respectively (P=0.44). In patients with diabetes, SCr increases > or = 0.5 mg/dL were 5.1% (4 of 78 patients) with iopamidol and 13.0% (12 of 92 patients) with iodixanol (P=0.11), whereas SCr increases > or = 25% were 10.3% and 15.2%, respectively (P=0.37). Mean post-SCr increases were significantly less with iopamidol (all patients: 0.07 versus 0.12 mg/dL, 6.2 versus 10.6 micromol/L, P=0.03; patients with diabetes: 0.07 versus 0.16 mg/dL, 6.2 versus 14.1 micromol/L, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of contrast-induced nephropathy, defined by multiple end points, is not statistically different after the intraarterial administration of iopamidol or iodixanol to high-risk patients, with or without diabetes mellitus. Any true difference between the agents is small and not likely to be clinically significant.