Isoproterenol Improves Hemodynamics And Right Ventricle-Pulmonary Artery Coupling After Heart Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Right ventricular failure (RVF) is a major cause of early mortality after heart transplantation (HT). Isoproterenol has chronotropic, inotropic, and vasodilatory properties which might improve right ventricle function in this setting. We aimed to investigate the hemodynamic effects of isoproterenol on patients with post-HT RVF. METHODS: We conducted a one-year retrospective observational study including patients receiving isoproterenol and dobutamine for early RVF after HT. A comprehensive multiparametric hemodynamic evaluation was performed successively at three times: no isoproterenol, low doses: 0.025 µg/kg/min and high doses: 0.05 µg/kg/min (henceforth respectively called no-iso, low-iso and high-iso). RESULTS: From June 2022 to June 2023, 25 patients, median [IQR25-75] age 54 [38-61] years, were included. Before isoproterenol introduction, all patients received dobutamine and 15 (60%) were on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Isoproterenol significantly increased heart rate from 84 [77-99] (no-iso) to 91 [88-106] (low-iso) and 102 [90-122] bpm (high-iso, p<0.001). Similarly, cardiac index raised from 2.3 [1.4-3.1] to 2.7 [1.8-3.4] and 3 [1.9-3.7] l/min/m2 (p<0.001) with concomitant increase of indexed stroke volume (28 [17-34] to 31 [20-34] and 33 [23-35] mL/m2, p<0.05). Effective pulmonary arterial elastance and pressures were not modified by isoproterenol. Pulmonary vascular resistance tended to decrease from 2.9 (1.4-3.6) WU to 2.3 (1.3-3.5) WU, p=0.06. Right ventricular ejection fraction/systolic PAP evaluating RV-PA coupling increased after isoproterenol from 0.8 to 0.9 and 1 %.mmHg-1 (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In post-HT RVF, isoproterenol exhibits chronotropic and inotropic effects, thereby improving RV-PA coupling and resulting in a clinically relevant increase in the cardiac index.

Recurrent ventilator-associated pneumonia in severe Covid-19 ARDS patients requiring ECMO support.

OBJECTIVE: To describe ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) recurrence in COVID-19 patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support, and to evaluate the impact of antimicrobial treatment duration of the first VAP episode on VAP recurrence. METHODS: Adult patients with COVID-19 severe pneumonia on ECMO admitted between March 2020 and January 2022 were retrospectively included. Primary outcome was incidence of VAP recurrence, and secondary outcome was the impact of duration of antimicrobial treatment on VAP recurrence. RESULTS: Among the 252 included patients, 226 (90%) developed a first VAP. Sixteen had lung abscess and were excluded, leaving 210 patients. VAP recurrence occurred in 172 patients (82%), with a median (IQR) time from first VAP to recurrence of 10 (7-13) days. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacteriaceae were respectively responsible for 28% and 52% of first VAP, and 51% and 62% of first recurrence episodes. Among the 210 patients with a first VAP, 158 (75%) received a short course of antibiotics [< 8 days, median (IQR) duration 6 (5-7) days] and 52 (25%) received a prolonged course of antibiotics [≥ 8 days, median (IQR) duration 9 (8-10) days]. Estimated cumulative incidence of VAP recurrence, taking into account death and extubation as competing risks, was not different in patients with short- and prolonged-antimicrobial treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe Covid-19-ARDS requiring ECMO support, VAP recurrence occurs frequently, with Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa as predominant causative microorganisms. An antimicrobial treatment of ≥ 8 days for the treatment of first VAP episode did not reduce the risk of VAP recurrence, as compared to shorter duration.

Sex Differences in Acute Heart Failure Management: Is There a Gap in Treatment Quality?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Differences between men and women in demographics and clinical phenotype of heart failure have previously been described, as well as disparities in management and outcomes. This review summarizes the latest evidence concerning sex-related differences in acute heart failure and its most severe form, cardiogenic shock. RECENT FINDINGS: Data from the last 5 years reaffirm the previous observations, with women with acute heart failure being older, more often having preserved ejection fraction and less frequently having an ischemic cause of the acute decompensation. Despite women still receive less invasive procedures and a less optimized medical treatment, the most recent studies find similar outcomes regardless of sex. These disparities persist in the context of cardiogenic shock, where women receive less mechanical circulatory support devices even if they present with more severe forms. This review reveals a different clinical picture of women with acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock compared to men, which translates into disparities in management. More female representation in studies would be needed in order to better understand the physiopathological basis of these differences and minimize inequalities in treatment and outcomes.

Clinical picture, management and risk stratification in patients with cardiogenic shock: does gender matter?

BACKGROUND: Early recognition and risk stratification are crucial in cardiogenic shock (CS). A lower adherence to recommendations has been described in women with cardiovascular diseases. Little information exists about disparities in clinical picture, management and performance of risk stratification tools according to gender in patients with CS. METHODS: Data from the multicenter Red-Shock registry were used. All consecutive patients with CS were included. Both CardShock and IABP-SHOCK II risk scores were calculated. The primary end-point was in-hospital mortality. The discriminative ability of both scores according to gender was assessed by binary logistic regression, calculating Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the corresponding area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: A total of 793 patients were included, of whom 222 (28%) were female. Women were significantly older and had a lower proportion of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and prior myocardial infarction. CS was less often related to acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in women. The use of vasoactive drugs, renal replacement therapy, invasive ventilation, therapeutic hypothermia and mechanical circulatory support was similar between both groups. In-hospital mortality was 346/793 (43.6%). Mortality was not significantly different according to gender (p = 0.194). Cardshock risk score showed a good ability for predicting in-hospital mortality both in man (AUC 0.69) and women (AUC 0.735). Likewise, the IABP-II successfully predicted in-hospital mortality in both groups (man: AUC 0.693; women: AUC 0.722). CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were observed regarding management and in-hospital mortality according to gender. Both the CardShock and IABP-II risk scores depicted a good ability for predicting mortality also in women with CS.

External validation and comparison of the CardShock and IABP-SHOCK II risk scores in real-world cardiogenic shock patients.

BACKGROUND: Mortality from cardiogenic shock remains high and early recognition and risk stratification are mandatory for optimal patient allocation and to guide treatment strategy. The CardShock and the Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock (IABP-SHOCK II) risk scores have shown good results in predicting short-term mortality in cardiogenic shock. However, to date, they have not been compared in a large cohort of ischaemic and non-ischaemic real-world cardiogenic shock patients. METHODS: The Red-Shock is a multicentre cohort of non-selected cardiogenic shock patients. We calculated the CardShock and IABP-SHOCK II risk scores in each patient and assessed discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: We included 696 patients. The main cause of cardiogenic shock was acute coronary syndrome, occurring in 62% of the patients. Compared with acute coronary syndrome patients, non-acute coronary syndrome patients were younger and had a lower proportion of risk factors but higher rates of renal insufficiency; intra-aortic balloon pump was also less frequently used (31% vs 56%). In contrast, non-acute coronary syndrome patients were more often treated with mechanical circulatory support devices (11% vs 3%, p<0.001 for both). Both risk scores were good predictors of in-hospital mortality in acute coronary syndrome patients and had similar areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (area under the curve: 0.742 for the CardShock vs 0.752 for IABP-SHOCK II, p=0.65). Their discrimination performance was only modest when applied to non-acute coronary syndrome patients (0.648 vs 0.619, respectively, p=0.31). Calibration was acceptable for both scores (Hosmer-Lemeshow p=0.22 for the CardShock and 0.68 for IABP-SHOCK II). CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, both the CardShock and the IABP-SHOCK II risk scores were good predictors of in-hospital mortality in acute coronary syndrome-related cardiogenic shock.

External validation and comparison of the CardShock and IABP-SHOCK II risk scores in real-world cardiogenic shock patients.

BACKGROUND: Mortality from cardiogenic shock remains high and early recognition and risk stratification are mandatory for optimal patient allocation and to guide treatment strategy. The CardShock and the Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock (IABP-SHOCK II) risk scores have shown good results in predicting short-term mortality in cardiogenic shock. However, to date, they have not been compared in a large cohort of ischaemic and non-ischaemic real-world cardiogenic shock patients. METHODS: The Red-Shock is a multicentre cohort of non-selected cardiogenic shock patients. We calculated the CardShock and IABP-SHOCK II risk scores in each patient and assessed discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: We included 696 patients. The main cause of cardiogenic shock was acute coronary syndrome, occurring in 62% of the patients. Compared with acute coronary syndrome patients, non-acute coronary syndrome patients were younger and had a lower proportion of risk factors but higher rates of renal insufficiency; intra-aortic balloon pump was also less frequently used (31% vs 56%). In contrast, non-acute coronary syndrome patients were more often treated with mechanical circulatory support devices (11% vs 3%, p<0.001 for both). Both risk scores were good predictors of in-hospital mortality in acute coronary syndrome patients and had similar areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (area under the curve: 0.742 for the CardShock vs 0.752 for IABP-SHOCK II, p=0.65). Their discrimination performance was only modest when applied to non-acute coronary syndrome patients (0.648 vs 0.619, respectively, p=0.31). Calibration was acceptable for both scores (Hosmer-Lemeshow p=0.22 for the CardShock and 0.68 for IABP-SHOCK II). CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, both the CardShock and the IABP-SHOCK II risk scores were good predictors of in-hospital mortality in acute coronary syndrome-related cardiogenic shock.