Best practices for vascular arterial access and closure: a contemporary guide for the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

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.

Contemporary approach to cardiogenic shock care: a state-of-the-art review.

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.

Systems of care for ambulatory management of decompensated heart failure.

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.

Sex-Related Differences in Patient Characteristics, Hemodynamics, and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock: INOVA-SHOCK Registry.

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.

A Standardized and Regionalized Network of Care for Cardiogenic Shock.

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.

Cardiogenic Shock From Heart Failure Versus Acute Myocardial Infarction: Clinical Characteristics, Hospital Course, and 1-Year Outcomes.

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.

The Multicenter Collaborative to Enhance Biologic Understanding, Quality, and Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock (VANQUISH Shock): Rationale and Design.

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.

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A RAND Appropriateness Panel Approach.

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.

Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Pathophysiology, Evaluation and Management Considerations: Review of Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock.

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.

Transradial access in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Stratified analysis by shock severity.

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.

Clinician Perceptions of the Impact of a Shock Team Approach in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Qualitative Study.

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.

A Standardized and Comprehensive Approach to the Management of Cardiogenic Shock.

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.