[Open questions with respect to extracorporeal circulatory support 2024]. / Offene Fragen zur extrakorporalen Kreislaufunterstützung 2024.

The use of extracorporeal circulatory support, both for cardiogenic shock and during resuscitation, still presents many unanswered questions. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for such a resource-intensive treatment must be clearly defined, considering that these criteria are directly associated with the type and location of treatment. For example, it is worth questioning the viability of an extracorporeal resuscitation program in areas where it is impossible to achieve low-flow times under 60 min due to local limitations. Additionally, the best approach for further treatment, including whether it is necessary to regularly relieve the left ventricle, must be explored. To find answers to some of these questions, large-scale, multicenter, randomized studies and registers must be performed. Until then this treatment must be carefully considered before use.

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.

Cardiogenic Shock in Older Adults: A Focus on Age-Associated Risks and Approach to Management: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Cardiogenic shock continues to portend poor outcomes, conferring short-term mortality rates of 30% to 50% despite recent scientific advances. Age is a nonmodifiable risk factor for mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock and is often considered in the decision-making process for eligibility for various therapies. Older adults have been largely excluded from analyses of therapeutic options in patients with cardiogenic shock. As a result, despite the association of advanced age with worse outcomes, focused strategies in the assessment and management of cardiogenic shock in this high-risk and growing population are lacking. Individual programs oftentimes develop upper age limits for various interventional strategies for their patients, including heart transplantation and durable left ventricular assist devices. However, age as a lone parameter should not be used to guide individual patient management decisions in cardiogenic shock. In the assessment of risk in older adults with cardiogenic shock, a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach is central to developing best practices. In this American Heart Association scientific statement, we aim to summarize our contemporary understanding of the epidemiology, risk assessment, and in-hospital approach to management of cardiogenic shock, with a unique focus on older adults.

Prediction of In-Hospital Mortality for Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

BACKGROUND: Clinical outcome of ischemic cardiogenic shock (CS) requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is highly variable, necessitating appropriate assessment of prognosis. However, a systemic predictive model estimating the mortality of refractory ischemic CS is lacking. The PRECISE (Prediction of In-Hospital Mortality for Patients With Refractory Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support) score was developed to predict the prognosis of refractory ischemic CS due to acute myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were obtained from the multicenter CS registry RESCUE (Retrospective and Prospective Observational Study to Investigate Clinical Outcomes and Efficacy of Left Ventricular Assist Device for Korean Patients With Cardiogenic Shock) that consists of 322 patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by refractory ischemic CS requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. Fifteen parameters were selected to assess in-hospital mortality. The developed model was validated internally and externally using an independent external cohort (n=138). Among 322 patients, 138 (42.9%) survived postdischarge. Fifteen predictors were included for model development: age, diastolic blood pressure, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, peak lactic acid, serum creatinine, lowest left ventricular ejection fraction, vasoactive inotropic score, shock to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation insertion time, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, use of intra-aortic balloon pump, continuous renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilator, successful coronary revascularization, and staged percutaneous coronary intervention. The PRECISE score yielded a high area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (0.894 [95% CI, 0.860-0.927]). External validation and calibration resulted in competent sensitivity (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve, 0.895 [95% CI, 0.853-0.930]). CONCLUSIONS: The PRECISE score demonstrated high predictive performance and directly translates into the expected in-hospital mortality rate. The PRECISE score may be used to support clinical decision-making in ischemic CS (www.theprecisescore.com). REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02985008.

Interhospital Variation in Admissions Managed With Critical Care Therapies or Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring in Tertiary Cardiac Intensive Care Units: An Analysis From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry.

BACKGROUND: Wide interhospital variations exist in cardiovascular intensive care unit (CICU) admission practices and the use of critical care restricted therapies (CCRx), but little is known about the differences in patient acuity, CCRx utilization, and the associated outcomes within tertiary centers. METHODS: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter registry of tertiary and academic CICUs in the United States and Canada that captured consecutive admissions in 2-month periods between 2017 and 2022. This analysis included 17 843 admissions across 34 sites and compared interhospital tertiles of CCRx (eg, mechanical ventilation, mechanical circulatory support, continuous renal replacement therapy) utilization and its adjusted association with in-hospital survival using logistic regression. The Pratt index was used to quantify patient-related and institutional factors associated with CCRx variability. RESULTS: The median age of the study population was 66 (56-77) years and 37% were female. CCRx was provided to 62.2% (interhospital range of 21.3%-87.1%) of CICU patients. Admissions to CICUs with the highest tertile of CCRx utilization had a greater burden of comorbidities, had more diagnoses of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or cardiogenic shock, and had higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores. The unadjusted in-hospital mortality (median, 12.7%) was 9.6%, 11.1%, and 18.7% in low, intermediate, and high CCRx tertiles, respectively. No clinically meaningful differences in adjusted mortality were observed across tertiles when admissions were stratified by the provision of CCRx. Baseline patient-level variables and institutional differences accounted for 80% and 5.3% of the observed CCRx variability, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a large registry of tertiary and academic CICUs, there was a >4-fold interhospital variation in the provision of CCRx that was primarily driven by differences in patient acuity compared with institutional differences. No differences were observed in adjusted mortality between low, intermediate, and high CCRx utilization sites.

Reperfusion in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock and Prolonged Interhospital Transport Times.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the preferred revascularization option. Little is known about the efficacy and safety of a pharmacoinvasive approach for patients with cardiogenic shock presenting to a non-PCI hospital with prolonged interhospital transport times. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of geographically extensive ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction network (2006-2021), 426 patients with cardiogenic shock and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction presented to a non-PCI-capable hospital and underwent reperfusion therapy (53.8% pharmacoinvasive and 46.2% pPCI). The primary clinical outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, renal failure requiring dialysis, cardiac arrest, or mechanical circulatory support, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding defined as an intracranial hemorrhage or bleeding that required transfusion was compared in an inverse probability weighted model. The electrocardiographic reperfusion outcome of interest was the worst residual ST-segment-elevation. RESULTS: Patients with pharmacoinvasive treatment had longer median interhospital transport (3 hours versus 1 hour) and shorter median symptom-onset-to-reperfusion (125 minute-to-needle versus 419 minute-to-balloon) times. ST-segment resolution ≥50% on the postfibrinolysis ECG was 56.6%. Postcatheterization, worst lead residual ST-segment-elevation <1 mm (57.3% versus 46.3%; P=0.01) was higher in the pharmacoinvasive compared with the pPCI cohort, but no differences were observed in the worst lead ST-segment-elevation resolution ≥50% (77.4% versus 81.8%; P=0.57). The primary clinical end point was lower in the pharmacoinvasive cohort (35.2% versus 57.0%; inverse probability weighted odds ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.26-0.72]; P<0.01) compared with patients who received pPCI. An interaction between interhospital transfer time and reperfusion strategy with all-cause mortality was observed, favoring a pharmacoinvasive approach with transfer times >60 minutes. The incidence of the primary safety outcome was 10.1% in the pharmacoinvasive arm versus 18.7% in pPCI (adjusted odds ratio, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.14-1.09]; P=0.08). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction presenting with cardiogenic shock and prolonged interhospital transport times, a pharmacoinvasive approach was associated with improved electrocardiographic reperfusion and a lower rate of death, dialysis, or mechanical circulatory support without an increase in major bleeding.

Critical Care Management of Patients After Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association and Neurocritical Care Society.

The critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest is burdened by a lack of high-quality clinical studies and the resultant lack of high-certainty evidence. This results in limited practice guideline recommendations, which may lead to uncertainty and variability in management. Critical care management is crucial in patients after cardiac arrest and affects outcome. Although guidelines address some relevant topics (including temperature control and neurological prognostication of comatose survivors, 2 topics for which there are more robust clinical studies), many important subject areas have limited or nonexistent clinical studies, leading to the absence of guidelines or low-certainty evidence. The American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the Neurocritical Care Society collaborated to address this gap by organizing an expert consensus panel and conference. Twenty-four experienced practitioners (including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and a respiratory therapist) from multiple medical specialties, levels, institutions, and countries made up the panel. Topics were identified and prioritized by the panel and arranged by organ system to facilitate discussion, debate, and consensus building. Statements related to postarrest management were generated, and 80% agreement was required to approve a statement. Voting was anonymous and web based. Topics addressed include neurological, cardiac, pulmonary, hematological, infectious, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and general critical care management. Areas of uncertainty, areas for which no consensus was reached, and future research directions are also included. Until high-quality studies that inform practice guidelines in these areas are available, the expert panel consensus statements that are provided can advise clinicians on the critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest.

Critical Care Management of Patients After Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and Neurocritical Care Society.

The critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest is burdened by a lack of high-quality clinical studies and the resultant lack of high-certainty evidence. This results in limited practice guideline recommendations, which may lead to uncertainty and variability in management. Critical care management is crucial in patients after cardiac arrest and affects outcome. Although guidelines address some relevant topics (including temperature control and neurological prognostication of comatose survivors, 2 topics for which there are more robust clinical studies), many important subject areas have limited or nonexistent clinical studies, leading to the absence of guidelines or low-certainty evidence. The American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the Neurocritical Care Society collaborated to address this gap by organizing an expert consensus panel and conference. Twenty-four experienced practitioners (including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and a respiratory therapist) from multiple medical specialties, levels, institutions, and countries made up the panel. Topics were identified and prioritized by the panel and arranged by organ system to facilitate discussion, debate, and consensus building. Statements related to postarrest management were generated, and 80% agreement was required to approve a statement. Voting was anonymous and web based. Topics addressed include neurological, cardiac, pulmonary, hematological, infectious, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and general critical care management. Areas of uncertainty, areas for which no consensus was reached, and future research directions are also included. Until high-quality studies that inform practice guidelines in these areas are available, the expert panel consensus statements that are provided can advise clinicians on the critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest.

[North-south syndrome, a complication of circulatory assistance with Veno-Arterial ECMO. A case report.] / El síndrome de norte-sur, una complicación de la asistencia circulatoria con ECMO Venoarterial. Reporte de caso.

We present the case of a 34-year-old male patient with a history of Marfan syndrome who was admitted to the emergency room for acute aortic regurgitation secondary to aneurysmal dilation of the ascending thoracic aorta. In the postoperative period, post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock was documented, so circulatory support was initiated with peripheral Veno-Arterial ECMO, which developed hypoxemia due to bacterial pneumonia and data compatible with North-South syndrome. We present a review, non-conventional cannulation strategies and a diagnostic alternative for this entity.

[Treatment of cardiogenic shock due to right ventricular involvement]. / Tratamiento del choque cardiogénico con compromiso ventricular derecho.

The right ventricle is susceptible to changes in preload, afterload, and contractility. The answer is its dilation with dysfunction/acute failure; filling is limited to the left ventricle and cardiac output. Systemic venous congestion is retrograde to the right heart, it is involved in the genesis of cardiogenic shock due to right ventricle involvement. This form of shock is less well known than that which occurs due to left ventricular failure, therefore, treatment may differ. Once the primary treatment has been carried out, since no response is obtained, supportive treatment aimed at ventricular pathophysiology will be the next option. It is suggested to evaluate the preload for the reasoned indication of liquids, diuretics or even ultrafiltration. Restore or maintain heart rate and sinus rhythm, treat symptomatic bradycardia, arrhythmias that make patients unstable, use of temporary pacing or cardioversion procedures. Improving contractility and vasomotility, using vasopressors and inotropes, alone or in combination, the objective will be to improve right coronary perfusion pressure. Balance the effect of drugs and maneuvers on preload and/or afterload, such as mechanical ventilation, atrial septostomy and pulmonary vasodilators. And the increasing utility of mechanical support of the circulation that has become a useful tool to preserve/restore right heart function.

El ventrículo derecho es susceptible a cambios en la precarga, poscarga y la contractilidad y la respuesta fisiopatológica es la dilatación con disfunción/falla aguda lo que limita el llenado del ventrículo izquierdo y el gasto cardiaco. La congestión venosa sistémica, está implicada en la génesis del choque cardiogénico con compromiso del ventrículo derecho. Esta forma de choque es menos conocida que la que sucede por falla ventricular izquierda, por ende, el tratamiento puede diferir. La primera línea de tratamiento son las medidas de soporte y en caso de no funcionar, el tratamiento dirigido a la fisiopatología ventricular será la siguiente opción. Se sugiere evaluar la precarga para la indicación razonada de líquidos, diuréticos o la ultrafiltración. Restaurar o mantener la frecuencia cardiaca y el ritmo sinusal, tratar la bradicardia sintomática, las arritmias que inestabilizan a los pacientes, el uso de marcapaso temporal o procedimientos de cardioversión. Mejorar la contractilidad y vasomotilidad a través del uso de vasopresores e inotrópicos, solos o combinados, el objetivo será mejorar la presión de perfusión coronaria derecha. Balancear el efecto de fármacos y maniobras en la precarga y/o poscarga, como la ventilación mecánica, septostomía atrial y vasodilatadores pulmonares. Y la creciente utilidad del soporte mecánico de la circulación que se ha convertido en una herramienta útil para preservar/restaurar la función cardiaca derecha.

Critical Care Echocardiography-A Driven Approach to Undifferentiated Shock.

The clinical approach to undifferentiated shock in critically ill patients should be revised to use modern, point-of-care tools that are readily available. With the increasing availability of 2-dimensional ultrasonography and advanced Doppler capabilities, a quick, simplified, and integrated stepwise approach to shock using critical care echocardiography is proposed. Evidence supports the feasibility and usefulness of critical care echo-cardiography in enhancing diagnostic accuracy for shock, but there is a lack of systematic application of the technology in patients with undifferentiated shock. The proposed approach begins with the use of noninvasive ultrasonography with pulsed-wave Doppler capability to determine the flow state by measuring the velocity time integral of the left ventricular outflow tract. This narrative review explores the use left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral, velocity time integral variation, limited visceral organ Doppler, and lung ultrasonography as a systematic approach for patients with undifferentiated shock.

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.

Trends and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock in Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease: Insights From USRDS Database.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data regarding epidemiology, temporal trends, and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) and end-stage renal disease (chronic kidney disease stage V on hemodialysis). METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using the United States Renal Data System database from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2019. We analyzed trends of CS, percutaneous mechanical support (intraaortic balloon pump, percutaneous ventricular assist device [Impella and Tandemheart], and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) utilization, index mortality, 30-day mortality, and 1-year all-cause mortality in end-stage renal disease patients. RESULTS: A total of 43 825 end-stage renal disease patients were hospitalized with CS (median age, 67.8 years [IQR, 59.4-75.8] and 59.1% men). From 2006 to 2019, the incidence of CS increased from 275 to 578 per 100 000 patients (Ptrend<0.001). The index mortality rate declined from 54.1% in 2006 to 40.8% in 2019 (Ptrend=0.44), and the 1-year all-cause mortality decreased from 63% in 2006 to 61.8% in 2018 (Ptrend=0.73), but neither trend was statistically significant. There was a significantly decreased utilization of intra-aortic balloon pumps from 17 832 to 7992 (Ptrend<0.001), increased utilization of percutaneous ventricular assist device from 137 to 5201 (Ptrend<0.001) and increase in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use from 69 to 904 per 100 000 patients (Ptrend<0.001). After adjusting for covariates, there was no significant difference in index mortality between CS patients requiring percutaneous mechanical support versus those not requiring percutaneous mechanical support (odds ratio, 0.97 [CI, 0.91-1.02]; P=0.22). On multivariable regression analysis, older age, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, and time on dialysis were independent predictors of higher index mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of CS in end-stage renal disease patients has doubled without significant change in the trend of index mortality despite the use of percutaneous mechanical support.

Comparison of Veno-arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Configurations for Patients Listed for Heart Transplantation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) as a bridge to eventual heart transplantation (HT) is increasingly used worldwide. However, the effect of different VA-ECMO types on HT outcomes remains unclear. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of 111 patients receiving VA-ECMO and awaiting HT. We assessed 3 ECMO configuration groups: peripheral (n=76), central (n=12), and peripheral to central ECMO conversion (n=23). Cox proportional hazards regression and landmark analysis were conducted to analyze the effect of the ECMO configuration on HT and in-hospital mortality rates. We also evaluated adverse events during ECMO support. RESULTS: HT was performed in the peripheral (n=48, 63.2%), central (n=10, 83.3%), and conversion (n=11, 47.8%) ECMO groups (p=0.133) with a median interval of 10.5, 16, and 30 days, respectively (p<0.001). The cumulative incidence of HT was significantly lower in the conversion group (hazard ratio, 0.292, 95% confidence interval, 0.145-0.586, p=0.001). However, there was no difference in in-hospital mortality (log-rank p=0.433). In the landmark analysis, in-hospital mortality did not differ significantly among the 3 groups. Although we did note a trend toward lower HT in the conversion group, the difference was not statistically significant. Surgical site bleeding occurred mainly in the central, while limb ischemia occurred mainly in the peripheral groups. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that if patients are being stably supported with their initial ECMO configuration, whether it is central or peripheral, it should be maintained, and ECMO conversion should only be cautiously performed when necessary.