Therapeutic Advances in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening state of tissue hypoperfusion, associated with a very high risk of mortality, despite intensive monitoring and modern treatment modalities. The present review aimed at describing the therapeutic advances in the management of CS. AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY: Many uncertainties about CS management remain in clinical practice, and these relate to the intensity of invasive monitoring, the type and timing of vasoactive therapies, the risk-benefit ratio of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) therapy, and optimal ventilation mode. Furthermore, most of the data are obtained from CS in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), although for non-AMI-CS patients, there are very few evidences for etiological or MCS therapies. DATA SOURCES: The prospective multicentric acute heart failure registries that specifically presented characteristics of patients with CS, distinct to other phenotypes, were included in the present review. Relevant clinical trials investigating therapeutic strategies in post-AMI-CS patients were added as source information. Several trials investigating vasoactive medications and meta-analysis providing information about benefits and risks of MCS devices were reviewed in this study. THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES: Early revascularization remains the most important intervention for CS in settings of AMI, and in patients with multivessel disease, recent trial data recommend revascularization on a "culprit-lesion-only" strategy. Although diverse types of MCS devices improve hemodynamics and organ perfusion in patients with CS, results from almost all randomized trials incorporating clinical end points were inconclusive. However, development of new algorithms for utilization of MCS devices and progresses in technology showed benefit in selected patients. A major advance in the management of CS is development of concept of regional CS centers based on the level of facilities and expertise. The modern systems of care with CS centers used as hubs integrated with emergency medical systems and other referee hospitals have the potential to improve patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Additional research is needed to establish new triage algorithms and to clarify intensity and timing of pharmacological and mechanical therapies.

Non-cardiac comorbidities and intensive up-titration of oral treatment in patients recently hospitalized for heart failure: Insights from the STRONG-HF trial.

AIMS: To assess the potential interaction between non-cardiac comorbidities (NCCs) and the efficacy and safety of high-intensity care (HIC) versus usual care (UC) in the STRONG-HF trial, including stable patients with improved but still elevated natriuretic peptides. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the trial, eight NCCs were reported: anaemia, diabetes, renal dysfunction, severe liver disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, psychiatric/neurological disorders, and malignancies. Patients were classified by NCC number (0, 1, 2 and ≥3). The treatment effect of HIC versus UC on the primary endpoint, 180-day death or heart failure (HF) rehospitalization, was compared by NCC number and by each individual comorbidity. Among the 1078 patients, the prevalence of 0, 1, 2 and ≥3 NCCs was 24.3%, 39.8%, 24.5% and 11.4%, respectively. Achievement of full doses of HF therapies at 90 and 180 days in the HIC was similar irrespective of NCC number. In HIC, the primary endpoint occurred in 10.0%, 16.6%, 13.6% and 26.2%, in those with 0, 1, 2 and ≥3 NCCs, respectively, as compared to 19.1%, 25.4%, 23.3% and 26.2% in UC (interaction-p = 0.80). The treatment benefit of HIC versus UC on the primary endpoint did not differ significantly by each individual comorbidity. There was no significant treatment interaction by NCC number in quality-of-life improvement (p = 0.98) or the incidence of serious adverse events (p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: In the STRONG-HF trial, NCCs neither limited the rapid up-titration of HF therapies, nor attenuated the benefit of HIC on the primary endpoint. In the context of a clinical trial, the benefit-risk ratio favours the rapid up-titration of HF therapies even in patients with multiple NCCs.

Heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic: clinical, diagnostic, management, and organizational dilemmas.

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection pandemic has affected the care of patients with heart failure (HF). Several consensus documents describe the appropriate diagnostic algorithm and treatment approach for patients with HF and associated COVID-19 infection. However, few questions about the mechanisms by which COVID can exacerbate HF in patients with high-risk (Stage B) or symptomatic HF (Stage C) remain unanswered. Therefore, the type of HF occurring during infection is poorly investigated. The diagnostic differentiation and management should be focused on the identification of the HF phenotype, underlying causes, and subsequent tailored therapy. In this framework, the relationship existing between COVID and onset of acute decompensated HF, isolated right HF, and cardiogenic shock is questioned, and the specific management is mainly based on local hospital organization rather than a standardized model. Similarly, some specific populations such as advanced HF, heart transplant, patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD), or valve disease remain under investigated. In this systematic review, we examine recent advances regarding the relationships between HF and COVID-19 pandemic with respect to epidemiology, pathogenetic mechanisms, and differential diagnosis. Also, according to the recent HF guidelines definition, we highlight different clinical profile identification, pointing out the main concerns in understudied HF populations.

Antithrombotic and anticoagulation therapies in cardiogenic shock: a critical review of the published literature.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex multifactorial clinical syndrome, developing as a continuum, and progressing from the initial insult (underlying cause) to the subsequent occurrence of organ failure and death. There is a large phenotypic variability in CS, as a result of the diverse aetiologies, pathogenetic mechanisms, haemodynamics, and stages of severity. Although early revascularization remains the most important intervention for CS in settings of acute myocardial infarction, the administration of timely and effective antithrombotic therapy is critical to improving outcomes in these patients. In addition, other clinical settings or non-acute myocardial infarction aetiologies, associated with high thrombotic risk, may require specific regimens of short-term or long-term antithrombotic therapy. In CS, altered tissue perfusion, inflammation, and multi-organ dysfunction induce unpredictable alterations to antithrombotic drugs' pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Other interventions used in the management of CS, such as mechanical circulatory support, renal replacement therapies, or targeted temperature management, influence both thrombotic and bleeding risks and may require specific antithrombotic strategies. In order to optimize safety and efficacy of these therapies in CS, antithrombotic management should be more adapted to CS clinical scenario or specific device, with individualized antithrombotic regimens in terms of type of treatment, dose, and duration. In addition, patients with CS require a close and appropriate monitoring of antithrombotic therapies to safely balance the increased risk of bleeding and thrombosis.