Efficacy and safety of angiotensin II in cardiogenic shock: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. In recent times, there is increasing interest in the role of angiotensin II in CS. We sought to systematically review the current literature on the use of angiotensin II in CS. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, PubMed Central, and CINAHL databases were systematically searched for studies that evaluated the efficacy of angiotensin II in patients with CS during 01/01/2010-07/07/2022. Outcomes of interest included change in mean arterial pressure (MAP), vasoactive medication requirements (percent change in norepinephrine equivalent [NEE] dose), all-cause mortality, and adverse events. RESULTS: Of the total 2,402 search results, 15 studies comprising 195 patients were included of which 156 (80%) received angiotensin II. Eleven patients (84.6%) in case reports and case series with reported MAP data at hour 12 noted an increase in MAP. Two studies noted a positive hemodynamic response (defined a priori) in eight (88.9%) and five (35.7%) patients. Eight studies reported a reduction in NEE dose at hour 12 after angiotensin II administration and one study noted a 100% reduction in NEE dose. Out of 47 patients with documented information, 13 patients had adverse outcomes which included hepatic injury (2), digital ischemia (1), ischemic optic neuropathy (1), ischemic colitis (2), agitated delirium (1), and thrombotic events (2). CONCLUSIONS: In this first systematic review of angiotensin II in CS, we note the early clinical experience. Angiotensin II was associated with improvements in MAP, decrease in vasopressor requirements, and minimal reported adverse events.

Targeted Temperature Management in Cardiac Arrest: An Updated Narrative Review.

The established benefits of cooling along with development of sophisticated methods to safely and precisely induce, maintain, monitor, and reverse hypothermia have led to the development of targeted temperature management (TTM). Early trials in human subjects showed that hypothermia conferred better neurological outcomes when compared to normothermia among survivors of cardiac arrest, leading to guidelines recommending targeted hypothermia in this patient population. Multiple studies have sought to explore and compare the benefit of hypothermia in various subgroups of patients, such as survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest versus in-hospital cardiac arrest, and survivors of an initial shockable versus non-shockable rhythm. Larger and more recent trials have shown no statistically significant difference in neurological outcomes between patients with targeted hypothermia and targeted normothermia; further, aggressive cooling is associated with a higher incidence of multiple systemic complications. Based on this data, temporal trends have leaned towards using a lenient temperature target in more recent times. Current guidelines recommend selecting and maintaining a constant target temperature between 32 and 36 °C for those patients in whom TTM is used (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence), as soon as possible after return of spontaneous circulation is achieved and airway, breathing (including mechanical ventilation), and circulation are stabilized. The comparative benefit of lower (32-34 °C) versus higher (36 °C) temperatures remains unknown, and further research may help elucidate this. Any survivor of cardiac arrest who is comatose (defined as unarousable unresponsiveness to external stimuli) should be considered as a candidate for TTM regardless of the initial presenting rhythm, and the decision to opt for targeted hypothermia versus targeted normothermia should be made on a case-by-case basis.

Role of adjunct anticoagulant or thrombolytic therapy in cardiac arrest without ST-segment-elevation or percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This study sought to compare the impact of additional anticoagulation or thrombolytic therapy in patients with cardiac arrest without ST-segment-elevation on electrocardiography and not receiving percutaneous coronary intervention. Three studies (two randomized controlled studies and one observational study) were included, which demonstrated that use of anticoagulation or thrombolytic therapy was associated with higher risk of bleeding, without improvements in time to return of spontaneous circulation or in-hospital mortality.

Impact of concomitant aortic stenosis on the management and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction hospitalizations in the United States.

Objective: To evaluate the prevalence, management and outcomes of concomitant aortic stenosis (AS) in admissions with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods: We used the HCUP-NIS database (2000-2017) to identify adult AMI admissions with concomitant AS. Outcomes of interest included prevalence of AS, in-hospital mortality, use of cardiac procedures, hospitalization costs, length of stay, and discharge disposition. Results: Among a total of 11,622,528 AMI admissions, 513,688 (4.4 %) were identified with concomitant AS. Adjusted temporal trends revealed an increase in STEMI and NSTEMI hospitalizations with concomitant AS. Compared to admissions without AS, those with AS were on average older, of female sex, had higher comorbidity, higher rates of NSTEMI (78.9 % vs 62.1 %), acute non-cardiac organ failure, and cardiogenic shock. Concomitant AS was associated with significantly lower use of coronary angiography (45.5 % vs 64.4 %), percutaneous coronary intervention (20.1 % vs 42.5 %), coronary atherectomy (1.7 % vs. 2.8 %) and mechanical circulatory support (3.5 % vs 4.8 %) (all p < 0.001). Admissions with AS had higher rates of coronary artery bypass surgery and surgical aortic valve replacement (5.9 % vs 0.1 %) compared to those without AS. Admissions with AMI and AS had higher in-hospital mortality (9.2 % vs. 6.0 %; adjusted OR 1.12 [95 % CI 1.10-1.13]; p <0.001). Concomitant AS was associated with longer hospital stay, more frequent palliative care consultations and less frequent discharges to home. Conclusions: In this 18-year study, an increase in prevalence of AS in AMI hospitalization was noted. Concomitant AS was associated with lower use of guideline-directed therapies and worse clinical outcomes among AMI admissions.

Influence of Household Income on Management and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.

The impact of socioeconomic status on care and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) remains understudied. Hence, adult admissions with AMI-CS were identified from the National Inpatient Sample database (2005 to 2017) and were divided into quartiles on the basis of median household income for zip code (0 to 25th, 26th to 50th, 51st to 75th, and 76th to 100th). In-hospital mortality, use of cardiac and noncardiac procedures, and resource utilization were compared between all 4 income quartiles. Among a total of 7,805,681 AMI admissions, cardiogenic shock was identified in 409,294 admissions (5.2%) with comparable prevalence of cardiogenic shock across all 4 income quartiles. AMI-CS admissions belonging to the lowest income quartile presented more often with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction and had comparable use of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention but lower use of early coronary angiography, early percutaneous coronary intervention, mechanical circulatory support devices, and pulmonary artery catheterization than higher income quartiles. In the adjusted analysis, admissions belonging to the 0 to 25th income quartile (odds ratio [OR] 1.17 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15 to 1.20], p <0.001), 26th to 50th quartile (OR 1.11 [95% CI 1.09 to 1.14], p <0.001), and 51st to 75th income quartile (OR 1.06 [95% CI 1.04 to 1.09], p <0.001) had higher adjusted in-hospital mortality than the highest income quartile (76th to 100th). Lowest income quartile admissions had lower rates of palliative care consultations and higher rates of do-not-resuscitate status than the higher income quartiles. Hospitalization charges and length of stay were higher for admissions belonging to the highest income quartile. In conclusion, lowest income quartile AMI-CS admissions were associated with higher rates of non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, lower use of mechanical circulatory support devices, and higher in-hospital mortality.

Redo-aortic valve replacement in prior stentless prosthetic aortic valves: Transcatheter versus surgical approach.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to compare outcomes of redo-aortic valve replacement (AVR) via surgical or transcatheter approach in prior surgical AVR with large percentage of prior stentless surgical AVR. BACKGROUND: With the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), patients with increased surgical risks now have an alternative to redo surgical AVR (SAVR), known as valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVR. Stentless prosthetic aortic valves present a more challenging implantation for ViV-TAVR given the lack of structural frame. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 173 subjects who have undergone SAVR (N = 100) or ViV-TAVR (N = 73) in patients with prior surgical AVR at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center from 2009 to 2019. Our study received the proper ethical oversight. RESULTS: The average ages in redo-SAVR and ViV-TAVR groups were 58.03 ± 13.86 and 66.57 ± 13.44 years, respectively (p < 0.0001). The redo-SAVR had significantly lower STS (2.78 ± 2.09 and 4.68 ± 5.51, p < 0.01) and Euroscores (4.32 ± 2.98 and 7.51 ± 8.24, p < 0.05). The redo-SAVR group had higher percentage requiring mechanical support (8% vs. 0%, p < 0.05) and vasopressors (53% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001), longer length of stay (13.65 ± 11.23 vs. 5.68 ± 7.64 days, p < 0.0001), and inpatient mortality (16% vs. 2.78%, p < 0.005). At 30-day follow-up, redo-SAVR group had higher rates of acute kidney injury (10% vs. 0%, p < 0.01), however ViV-TAVR group had more new left bundle branch blocks (6.85% vs. 0%, p < 0.05). No significant differences regarding re-hospitalization rates, stroke, or death up to 1-year. CONCLUSION: Although the ViV-TAVR group had higher risk patients, there were significantly fewer procedural complications, shorter length of stay, and similar mortality outcomes up to 1-year follow-up.

Multivessel Versus Culprit-Vessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare outcomes of patients enrolled in the NCSI (National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative) trial who were treated using a revascularization strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of multivessel PCI (MV-PCI) versus culprit-vessel PCI (CV-PCI). BACKGROUND: In patients with multivessel disease who present with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS), intervening on the nonculprit vessel is controversial. There are conflicting published reports and lack of evidence, particularly in patients treated with early mechanical circulatory support (MCS). METHODS: From July 2016 to December 2019, patients who presented with AMICS to 57 participating hospitals were included in this analysis. All patients were treated using a standard shock protocol emphasizing early MCS, revascularization, and invasive hemodynamic monitoring. Patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) were analyzed according to whether CV-PCI or MV-PCI was undertaken during the index procedure. RESULTS: Of 198 patients with MVCAD, 126 underwent MV-PCI (64%) and 72 underwent CV-PCI (36%). Demographics between the cohorts were similar with respect to age, sex, history of diabetes, prior PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting, and prior history of myocardial infarction. Patients who underwent MV-PCI had a trend toward more severe impairment of cardiac output and worse lactate clearance on presentation, and cardiac performance was significantly worse at 12 h. However, 24 h from PCI, the hemometabolic derangements were similar. Survival and rates of acute kidney injury were not significantly different between groups (69.8% MV-PCI vs. 65.3% CV-PCI; p = 0.51; and 29.9% vs. 34.2%; p = 0.64, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with MVCAD presenting with AMICS treated with early MCS, revascularization of nonculprit lesions was associated with similar hospital survival and acute kidney injury when compared with culprit-only PCI. Selective nonculprit PCI can be safety performed in AMICS in patients supported with mechanical circulatory support.