Impact of the Timing of Mechanical Circulatory Support on the Outcomes in Myocardial Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Subanalysis of the PREPARE CS Registry.

(1) Background: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in myocardial infarction-associated cardiogenic shock is subject to debate. This analysis aims to elucidate the impact of MCS's timing on patient outcomes, based on data from the PREPARE CS registry. (2) Methods: The PREPARE CS prospective registry includes patients who experienced cardiogenic shock (SCAI classes C-E) and were subsequently referred for cardiac catheterization. Our present analysis included a subset of this registry, in whom MCS was used and who underwent coronary intervention due to myocardial infarction. Patients were categorized into an Upfront group and a Procedural group, depending on the timing of MCS's introduction in relation to their PCI. The endpoint was in-hospital mortality. (3) Results: In total, 71 patients were included. MCS was begun prior to PCI in 33 (46%) patients (Upfront), whereas 38 (54%) received MCS during or after the initiation of PCI (Procedural). The groups' baseline characteristics and hemodynamic parameters were comparable. The Upfront group had a higher utilization of the Impella® device compared to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (67% vs. 33%), while the Procedural group exhibited a balanced use of both (50% vs. 50%). Most patients suffered from multi-vessel disease in both groups (82% vs. 84%, respectively; p = 0.99), and most patients required a complex PCI procedure; the latter was more prevalent in the Upfront group (94% vs. 71%, respectively; p = 0.02). Their rates of complete revascularization were comparable (52% vs. 34%, respectively; p = 0.16). Procedural CPR was significantly more frequent in the Procedural group (45% vs. 79%, p < 0.05); however, in-hospital mortality was similar (61% vs. 79%, respectively; p = 0.12). (4) Conclusions: The upfront implantation of MCS in myocardial infarction-associated CS did not provide an in-hospital survival benefit.

Outcomes of ECLS-SHOCK Eligibility Criteria Applied to a Real-World Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) exhibits high (~50%) in-hospital mortality. The recently published Extracorporeal life Support in Cardiogenic Shock (ECLS-SHOCK) trial demonstrated the neutral effects of the use of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) on all-cause death, as well as on all secondary outcomes in subjects presenting with myocardial-infarction (MI)-related CS. Here, we compared ECLS-SHOCK eligibility criteria with a real-world cohort of CS patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: ECLS-SHOCK eligibility criteria were applied to a prospective single-center CS registry (the PREPARE CS registry) consisting of 557 patients who were consecutively admitted to the catheterization laboratory (cath lab) of the Medical University of Graz, Austria, due to CS (SCAI C-E). Overall use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in this cohort was 19%. Sixty-nine percent of the entire cohort had MI-related CS, 38% of whom would have met ECLS-SHOCK eligibility criteria, thus representing only 27% of the PREPARE CS registry. Exclusion from the ECLS-SHOCK trial was based on patients with initial lactate values below 3 mmol/L (n = 168; 43.6%), aged over 80 years (n = 65; 16.9%), and with a duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) exceeding 45 min (n = 22; 5.7%). The 30-day mortality of patients of the PREPARE CS registry who met the ECLS-SHOCK eligibility criteria was 57.0%, compared to 48.4% of patients in the ECLS-SHOCK trial. The patients' baseline characteristics, however, differed considerably with respect to type of infarction, age, and gender. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world cohort of patients with MI-related CS, only 38% of patients met the eligibility criteria of the ECLS-SHOCK trial. Thus, the impact of the use of VA-ECMO on outcome parameters in MI-related CS, as observed in the ECLS-SHOCK trial, may differ in a more heterogeneous real-world CS population of the PREPARE CS registry.