Evolution of Cardiogenic Shock Management and Development of a Multidisciplinary Team-Based Approach: Ten Years Experience of a Single Center.

Background: The management of cardiogenic shock (CS) after ACS has evolved over time, and the development of a multidisciplinary team-based approach has been shown to improve outcomes, although mortality remains high. Methods: All consecutive patients with ACS-CS admitted at our CICU from March 2012 to July 2021 were included in this single-center retrospective study. In 2019, we established a "shock team" consisting of a cardiac intensivist, an interventional cardiologist, an anesthetist, and a cardiac surgeon. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results: We included 167 patients [males 67%; age 71 (61-80) years] with ischemic CS. The proportion of SCAI shock stages from A to E were 3.6%, 6.6%, 69.4%, 9.6%, and 10.8%, respectively, with a mean baseline serum lactate of 5.2 (3.1-8.8) mmol/L. Sixty-six percent of patients had severe LV dysfunction, and 76.1% needed ≥ 1 inotropic drug. Mechanical cardiac support (MCS) was pursued in 91.1% [65% IABP, 23% Impella CP, 4% VA-ECMO]. From March 2012 to July 2021, we observed a significative temporal trend in mortality reduction from 57% to 29% (OR = 0.90, p = 0.0015). Over time, CS management has changed, with a significant increase in Impella catheter use (p = 0.0005) and a greater use of dobutamine and levosimendan (p = 0.015 and p = 0.0001) as inotropic support. In-hospital mortality varied across SCAI shock stages, and the SCAI E profile was associated with a poor prognosis regardless of patient age (OR 28.50, p = 0.039). Conclusions: The temporal trend mortality reduction in CS patients is multifactorial, and it could be explained by the multidisciplinary care developed over the years.

[Early and mid-term results of the transapical aortic valve Symetis Acurate TA: a viable solution in high-risk patients with severe vascular disease]. / Risultati a breve e medio termine della valvola aortica transapicale Symetis Acurate TA: valida soluzione nei pazienti vasculopatici ad alto rischio.

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve stenosis is the most common valvular disease in the elderly. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation represents a viable alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement. In our Department, the transapical approach is the preferred method in patients with severe peripheral vascular disease. The aim of this study was to analyze the early and midterm results of Symetis Acurate TA implantation in our series. METHODS: From June 2013 to January 2017, 21 patients with severe peripheral vascular disease (11 male, mean age 78 ± 2.8 years) underwent transapical implantation of the Symetis Acurate TA device. Mean logistic EuroSCORE I was 21.9 ± 8.6, mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 51.9 ± 12.2%, and mean aortic gradient was 46.7 ± 12.3 mmHg. Valve implantation was performed through a left anterior minithoracotomy. Patients were followed up on a regular basis. Cardiac echocardiographic assessment was performed at 6 months post-implantation. RESULTS: Valve implantation was successful in all patients. Valve sizes were as follows: 7 size S, 6 size M, and 8 size L. Two patients died before hospital discharge (9.5%). Among survivors, 2 patients showed more than mild aortic regurgitation at discharge. Mean aortic gradient was 13.1 ± 4.3 mmHg (p<0.01). Median follow-up was 11.3 months. Mean NYHA class at follow-up was 1.9 ± 0.4 (p<0.05). Mean actuarial survival was 80%. CONCLUSIONS: Our series, even if small, demonstrates that transapical implantation of the Symetis Acurate TA device represents a viable solution in patients with severe peripheral vascular disease carrying a high operative risk. The relatively high operative mortality may be attributable to the learning curve of our team.

Flecainide-metoprolol combination reduces atrial fibrillation clinical recurrences and improves tolerability at 1-year follow-up in persistent symptomatic atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects ∼2% of the total population. In order to prevent AF recurrences, many anti-arrhythmic drugs are currently available, but most of them are burdened by serious side effects and suboptimal efficacy. The aim of the present study was to test efficacy and safety of a combination of flecainide and metoprolol in preventing AF clinical recurrences. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study is a monocentric, prospective, randomized, open-blinded trial on 173 patients with a recent episode of paroxysmal or persistent AF. Patients were randomized into group A (flecainide + metoprolol; n = 80), group B (flecainide only; n = 72), or group C (metoprolol only; n = 21). Main exclusion criteria were recent acute coronary syndrome, heart failure New York Heart Association class III-IV, left ventricular ejection fraction <0.40, atrioventricular conduction disorders, and severe bradycardia. Primary endpoint was symptomatic recurrence over 1-year follow-up. Secondary endpoint was quality of life (QoL) over 1-year follow-up, as assessed by the SF-36 and Atrial Fibrillation Severity Scale questionnaires. Combination therapy with flecainide and metoprolol significantly reduced recurrences at 1-year follow-up when compared with flecainide alone in the whole population (66.7 vs. 46.8%; P < 0.001) and in patients with persistent AF (71.1 vs. 43.6%; P = 0.025) while adding beta-blocker therapy to paroxysmal AF showed no benefit over IC anti-arrhythmic drug-only. Patients randomized to combination therapy experienced a significant improvement of QoL when compared with those assigned to a flecainide-only regimen irrespective of AF type. CONCLUSION: Flecainide-metoprolol combination therapy improves effectiveness of rhythm control in persistent symptomatic AF and increases tolerability, with a concomitant reduction of side effects and a better compliance.