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.

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.

LVAD decommissioning for myocardial recovery: Long-term ventricular remodeling and adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) mechanically unload the heart and coupled with neurohormonal therapy can promote reverse cardiac remodeling and myocardial recovery. Minimally invasive LVAD decommissioning with the device left in place has been reported to be safe over short-term follow-up. Whether device retention reduces long-term safety, or sustainability of recovery is unknown. METHODS: This is a dual-center retrospective analysis of patients who had achieved responder status (left ventricular ejection fraction, LVEF ≥40% and left ventricular internal diastolic diameter, LVIDd ≤6.0 cm) and underwent elective LVAD decommissioning for myocardial recovery from May 2010 to January 2020. All patients had outflow graft closure and driveline resection with the LVAD left in place. Emergent LVAD decommissioning for an infection or device thrombosis was excluded. Patients were followed with serial echocardiography for up to 3-years. The primary clinical outcome was survival free of heart failure hospitalization, LVAD reimplantation, or transplant. RESULTS: During the study period 515 patients received an LVAD and 29 (5.6%) achieved myocardial recovery, 12 patients underwent total device explantation or urgent device decommissioning, 17 patients underwent elective LVAD decommissioning, and were included in the analysis. Median age of patients at LVAD implantation was 42 years (interquartile range, IQR: 25-54 years), all had a nonischemic cardiomyopathy, and 5 (29%) were female. At LVAD implantation, median LVEF was 10% (IQR: 5%-15%), and LVIDd 6.6 cm (IQR: 5.8-7.1 cm). There were 11 hydrodynamically levitated centrifugal-flow (65%), and 6 axial-flow LVADs (35%). The median duration of LVAD support before decommissioning was 28.7 months (range 13.5-36.2 months). As compared to the turndown study parameters, 1-month post-decommissioning, median LVEF decreased from 55% to 48% (p = 0.03), and LVIDd increased from 4.8 cm to 5.2 cm (p = 0.10). There was gradual remodeling until 6 months, after which there was no statistical difference on follow-up through 3-years (LVEF 42%, LVIDd 5.6 cm). Recurrent infections affected 41% of patients leading to 3 deaths and 1 complete device explant. Recurrent HF occurred in 1 patient who required a transplant. Probability of survival free of HF, LVAD, or transplant was 94% at 1-year, and 78% at 3-years. CONCLUSIONS: LVAD decommissioning for myocardial recovery was associated with excellent long-term survival free from recurrent heart failure and preservation of ventricular size and function up to 3-years. Reducing the risk of recurrent infections, remains an important therapeutic goal for this management strategy.

Framework to Classify Reverse Cardiac Remodeling With Mechanical Circulatory Support: The Utah-Inova Stages.

BACKGROUND: Variable definitions and an incomplete understanding of the gradient of reverse cardiac remodeling following continuous flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation has limited the field of myocardial plasticity. We evaluated the continuum of LV remodeling by serial echocardiographic imaging to define 3 stages of reverse cardiac remodeling following LVAD. METHODS: The study enrolled consecutive LVAD patients across 4 study sites. A blinded echocardiographer evaluated the degree of structural (LV internal dimension at end-diastole [LVIDd]) and functional (LV ejection fraction [LVEF]) change after LVAD. Patients experiencing an improvement in LVEF ≥40% and LVIDd ≤6.0 cm were termed responders, absolute change in LVEF of ≥5% and LVEF <40% were termed partial responders, and the remaining patients with no significant improvement in LVEF were termed nonresponders. RESULTS: Among 358 LVAD patients, 34 (10%) were responders, 112 (31%) partial responders, and the remaining 212 (59%) were nonresponders. The use of guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure was higher in partial responders and responders. Structural changes (LVIDd) followed a different pattern with significant improvements even in patients who had minimal LVEF improvement. With mechanical unloading, the median reduction in LVIDd was -0.6 cm (interquartile range [IQR], -1.1 to -0.1 cm; nonresponders), -1.1 cm (IQR, -1.8 to -0.4 cm; partial responders), and -1.9 cm (IQR, -2.9 to -1.1 cm; responders). Similarly, the median change in LVEF was -2% (IQR, -6% to 1%), 9% (IQR, 6%-14%), and 27% (IQR, 23%-33%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Reverse cardiac remodeling associated with durable LVAD support is not an all-or-none phenomenon and manifests in a continuous spectrum. Defining 3 stages across this continuum can inform clinical management, facilitate the field of myocardial plasticity, and improve the design of future investigations.

A novel, highly discriminatory risk model predicting acute severe right ventricular failure in patients undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implant.

Various risk models with differing discriminatory power and predictive accuracy have been used to predict right ventricular failure (RVF) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement. There remains an unmet need for a contemporary risk score for continuous flow (CF)-LVADs. We sought to independently validate and compare existing risk models in a large cohort of patients and develop a simple, yet highly predictive risk score for acute, severe RVF. Data from the Mechanical Circulatory Support Research Network (MCSRN) registry, consisting of patients who underwent CF-LVAD implantation, were randomly divided into equal-sized derivation and validation samples. RVF scores were calculated for the entire sample, and the need for a right ventricular assist device (RVAD) was the primary endpoint. Candidate predictors from the derivation sample were subjected to backward stepwise logistic regression until the model with lowest Akaike information criterion value was identified. A risk score was developed based on the identified variables and their respective regression coefficients. Between May 2004 and September 2014, 734 patients underwent implantation of CF-LVADs [HeartMate II LVAD, 76% (n = 560), HeartWare HVAD, 24% (n = 174)]. A RVAD was required in 4.5% (n = 33) of the patients [Derivation cohort, n = 15 (4.3%); Validation cohort, n = 18 (5.2%); P = 0.68)]. 19.5% of the patients (n = 143) were female, median age at implant was 59 years (IQR, 49.4-65.3), and median INTERMACS profile was 3 (IQR, 2-3). RVAD was required in 4.5% (n = 33) of the patients. Correlates of acute, severe RVF in the final model included heart rate, albumin, BUN, WBC, cardiac index, and TR severity. Areas under the curves (AUC) for most commonly used risk predictors ranged from 0.61 to 0.78. The AUC for the new model was 0.89 in the derivation and 0.92 in the validation cohort. Proposed risk model provides very high discriminatory power predicting acute severe right ventricular failure and can be reliably applied to patients undergoing placement of contemporary continuous flow left ventricular assist devices.

Unrecognized Left Heart Failure in LVAD Recipients: The Role of Routine Invasive Hemodynamic Testing.

The role of routine right heart catheterizations (RHCs) in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients is undefined. We analyzed 105 continuous-flow LVAD recipients who underwent an RHC approximately 3 months after implant. In 38 patients, LVAD speed was ramped with the goal of optimizing hemodynamics. Our cohort consisted of 71 (68%) HeartMate II (HMII) and 34 (32%) HeartWare (HVAD) patients. Thirty patients (29%) had either a reduced cardiac index (CI ≤ 2.2 L/min/m), elevated pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP > 18 mm Hg), or both. A subgroup of 38 patients (19 with abnormal hemodynamics) underwent LVAD ramping. With LVAD ramping, normalization of hemodynamics was achieved in 13 (68%) patients with abnormal hemodynamics. In ramped patients, the CI increased from 2.1 L/min/m (2.0-2.3) to 2.5 L/min/m (2.3-2.6; p = 0.004), and the PCWP dropped from 21 mm Hg (20-26) to 18 mm Hg (14-21, p < 0.001). The 6-minute walk distance improved from 338 m (253-394) to 353 m (320-442, p = 0.041). A 400 rpm change in HMII speed was like a 130 rpm change in HVAD speed and led to a change in cardiac output (CO) of 0.3 L/min. The correlation between device-reported flow and measured CO for both the HMII (Rs = 0.50, p < 0.001) and HVAD (Rs = 0.47, p < 0.001) was moderate. At 3 months after LVAD implant, most patients have normal hemodynamics. Of those patients with abnormal hemodynamics, LVAD ramping results in normalization of hemodynamics and improvement in 6-minute walk distance.

Outcomes of Patients Receiving Temporary Circulatory Support Before Durable Ventricular Assist Device.

BACKGROUND: Temporary circulatory support (TCS) is used to stabilize patients in critical cardiogenic shock and bridge patients to a durable ventricular assist device (VAD). Whether TCS confers increased risk at the time of VAD implant is unknown. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from five institutions was retrospectively reviewed. All profile 1 through profile 3 patients implanted with a continuous-flow VAD (n = 804) were categorized into three groups: TCS (n = 68); non-TCS profile 1 (n = 70); and non-TCS profile 2-3 (n = 666). RESULTS: End-organ function and hemodynamics were worse before TCS than in non-TCS profile 1 patients: creatinine (1.7 ± 0.1 mg/dL versus 1.3 ± 0.06 mg/dL, p = 0.003); and right atrial pressure (16 ± 0.8 mm Hg versus 13 ± 1.1 mm Hg, p = 0.048). The TCS restored cardiac output before durable VAD (4.9 ± 0.2 L/min), and was comparable to profile 2-3 patients (4.3 ± 0.05 L/min) and better than profile 1 patients (4.0 ± 0.2 L/min, p = 0.002). Markers of hepatic function such as bilirubin were impaired before VAD in TCS and profile 1 patients (2.0 ± 0.2 mg/dL) compared with profile 2 and 3 patients (1.1 ± 0.03, p < 0.001). The incidence of postoperative right ventricular failure necessitating a right VAD was 21% for TCS patients and non-TCS profile 1 patients compared with 2% for profile 2-3 patients (p < 0.001). Profile 1 and TCS patients had similar 1-year survival (70% and 77%, p = 0.57), but inferior survival as compared with profile 2 and 3 patients (82%, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, TCS increased the hazard of death twofold. CONCLUSIONS: Temporary circulatory support restores hemodynamics and reverses end-organ dysfunction. Nevertheless, these patients have high residual risk with postoperative morbidity and mortality that parallels profile 1 patients without TCS. Caution is suggested in downgrading risk for TCS patients with improved hemodynamic stability.

Ventricular Assist Device Therapy in Older Patients With Heart Failure: Characteristics and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on outcomes in patients ≥70 years of age supported with the use of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). METHODS: Data on 1149 continuous-flow LVAD recipients was queried from the Mechanical Circulatory Support Research Network. Groups were assigned based on age: ≥70 years ("older patients") and <70 years. The primary outcome was survival at one-year based on age grouping. RESULTS: Compared with younger patients (54.3 ± 11.2 y; n = 986), older patients (73.4 ± 3.0 y) constituted only 14% of LVAD implants. Older patients had similar rates of device thrombosis (P = .47) and stroke (P = .44), but survival-free of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) at 1 year was lower compared with younger patients (58% vs 69%; P < .01). Unadjusted survival at 1 year in older patients was 75% compared with 84% in younger patients, and at 2 years 65% versus 73% (P = .18). Age ≥70 years was not associated with increased mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.26; P = .67). Preoperative creatinine (aHR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.30-1.89, P < .0001), bilirubin (aHR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05-1.42; P = .010), and ischemic cardiomyopathy (aHR 1.43, 95% CI 1.11-1.84; P = .005) portended increased risk of death. In older patients, the only predictor of mortality was creatinine (HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.2-3.4; P = .007). Creatinine ≥1.4 mg/dL was associated with a 1-year survival of 65%, compared with 84% when the creatinine was <1.4 mg/dL (P = .009). CONCLUSION: Age >70 years is an important consideration when assessing LVAD risk, but other correlates may be more predictive of LVAD survival. Older patients without renal dysfunction have survival similar to younger patients. Older patients should be counseled about age-correlated risks, including higher rates of GIB.

Clinical Outcomes of Advanced Heart Failure Patients with Cardiogenic Shock Treated with Temporary Circulatory Support Before Durable LVAD Implant.

Temporary circulatory support (TCS) is used to improve hemodynamics in patients with cardiogenic shock as a bridge to durable ventricular assist device (dVAD). Data from dVAD recipients with or without TCS (extracorporeal membranous oxygenation [ECMO], n = 14; TandemHeart [TH], n = 26) were evaluated. Clinical characteristics and hemodynamics were analyzed for patients before and after TCS and compared with profile 1 (n = 29) or profile 2-3 (n = 269) patients without TCS before dVAD. Extracorporeal membranous oxygenation patients had the highest use of preoperative mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and the highest HeartMate II risk score before dVAD (p < 0.01). Patients receiving TCS before dVAD implant had hemodynamics comparable with patients in Profiles 2-3 and superior to that of Profile 1 patients without TCS. Operative survival after dVAD was lower in patients receiving ECMO (57%) compared with Profile 1 patients receiving TH (88%), Profile 1 without TCS (82%), or Profile 2-3 patients (97%; all p < 0.01). Despite improved clinical stability with TCS, patients bridged to a dVAD have event-free survival that parallels patients in profile 1 without TCS. Our data suggest that patients requiring TCS before dVAD implant should be still classified Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support profile 1.

Hepatitis C virus seropositivity in organ donors and survival in heart transplant recipients.

CONTEXT: Although liberalization of donor criteria could expand the donor pool, the use of certain "marginal donors," such as those who are hepatitis C virus (HCV) positive, is controversial. Little is known about the effect of donor HCV positivity on survival in cardiac transplantation. OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between donor HCV positivity and survival among heart transplant recipients and to determine the effects of recipient age and recipient HCV status on this association. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter cohort study was performed using the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Adult heart transplant patients who received their transplants between April 1, 1994, and July 31, 2003, were eligible for inclusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: All-cause mortality. RESULTS: Of 10 915 patients meeting entry criteria, 261 received an HCV-positive donor heart. Mortality was higher among recipients of HCV-positive donor hearts at 1 year (16.9% vs 8.2%; P<.001), 5 years (41.8% vs 18.5%; P<.001), and 10 years (50.6% vs 24.3%; P<.001). Using Kaplan-Meier methods, 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 83%, 53%, and 25%, and 92%, 77%, and 53% for recipients of HCV-positive and HCV-negative donor hearts, respectively (P<.001, log-rank test). Recipients of HCV-positive donor hearts were more likely to die of liver disease and coronary vasculopathy. After propensity matching, the overall hazard ratio (HR) associated with receipt of an HCV-positive donor heart was 2.10 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60-2.75). Stratified analyses showed that HRs did not vary by recipient HCV status or by recipient age (for recipients aged 18-39 years: HR, 1.75 [95% CI, 0.70-4.40]; for recipients aged 40-59 years: HR, 2.23 [95% CI, 1.42-3.52]; and for recipients aged 60 years and older: HR, 2.07 [95% CI, 1.32-3.27]; overall P value for interaction, >.10). CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of a heart from an HCV-positive donor is associated with decreased survival in heart transplant recipients. This association appears to be independent of recipient HCV status and age. Preferential allocation of HCV-positive donors to HCV-positive recipients and/or older recipients is not warranted.

Pulsatile hemodynamic effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure: the CHARM Program.

BACKGROUND: Abnormal large artery function and increased pulsatile load are exacerbated by excess angiotensin-II acting through the AT1 receptor and contribute to the pathogenesis and progression of chronic heart failure (CHF). AIMS: To evaluate effects of the AT1 receptor blocker candesartan (N = 30) or placebo (N = 34) on pulsatile hemodynamics in participants with CHF in the CHARM program. METHODS AND RESULTS: Noninvasive hemodynamics were assessed following 6 and 14 months of treatment and averaged. Using calibrated tonometry and aortic outflow Doppler, characteristic impedance was calculated as the ratio of the change in carotid pressure and aortic flow in early systole. Total arterial compliance was calculated by the diastolic area method. Brachial blood pressure, cardiac output and peripheral resistance did not differ between groups. Lower central pulse pressure in the candesartan group (57+/-20 vs. 67+/-17 mmHg, P = 0.043) was accompanied by lower characteristic impedance (200+/-78 vs. 240+/-74 dyne s/cm5, P = 0.039) and higher total arterial compliance (1.87+/-0.70 vs. 1.47+/-0.48 ml/mmHg, P = 0.008). Similar favorable differences were seen when analyses were stratified for ejection fraction (< or = 0.40 vs. >0.40) and baseline angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor use. CONCLUSIONS: Candesartan has a favorable effect on large artery function in patients with chronic heart failure.

Detection of cardiac allograft rejection and response to immunosuppressive therapy with peripheral blood gene expression.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of gene expression in peripheral blood may provide a noninvasive screening test for allograft rejection. We hypothesized that changes in peripheral blood expression profiles would correlate with biopsy-proven rejection and would resolve after treatment of rejection episodes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a case-control study nested within a cohort of 189 cardiac transplant patients who had blood samples obtained during endomyocardial biopsy (EMB). Using Affymetrix HU133A microarrays, we analyzed whole-blood expression profiles from 3 groups: (1) control samples with negative EMB (n=7); (2) samples obtained during rejection (at least International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation grade 3A; n=7); and (3) samples obtained after rejection, after treatment and normalization of the EMB (n=7). We identified 91 transcripts differentially expressed in rejection compared with control (false discovery rate <0.10). In postrejection samples, 98% of transcripts returned toward control levels, displaying an intermediate expression profile for patients with treated rejection (P<0.0001). Cluster analysis of the 40 transcripts with >25% change in expression levels during rejection demonstrated good discrimination between control and rejection samples and verified the intermediate expression profile of postrejection samples. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction confirmed significant differential expression for the predictive markers CFLAR and SOD2 (UniGene ID No. 355724 and No. 384944). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that peripheral blood expression profiles correlate with biopsy-proven allograft rejection. Intermediate expression profiles of treated rejection suggest persistent immune activation despite normalization of the EMB. If validated in larger studies, expression profiling may prove to be a more sensitive screening test for allograft rejection than EMB.

Combined orthotopic heart and liver transplantation: the need for exception status listing.

Through May 2004, 33 combined orthotopic heart-liver transplants (OHT/OLT) have been performed nationwide. No published data exist to date regarding outcomes of patients awaiting such transplants, although progression of two organ disease processes may contribute to premature death for waiting patients. Retrospective data were collected on patients listed for combined OHT/OLT from both an individual tertiary care transplant center and the national UNOS registry to delineate listing criteria and evaluate patient outcomes in both the pre- and post-MELD eras. All patients who survived to transplantation or died on the waiting list were included in the analysis. Results show that 29.6% of patients registered nationally and 42% of patients listed institutionally survived to transplantation. Survival to transplantation was associated with less severe liver disease, though patients with MELD scores ranging from 19 to 26 had significantly higher wait list mortality than expected when compared to single-organ liver transplants. Following combined orthotopic heart-liver transplantation, 80% and 70% of patients survive 1 and 3 years, respectively. In conclusion, combined OHT/OLT is a successful therapy, but current organ allocation policies may not ensure expeditious transplantation in critically ill patients with dual vital organ failure. Providing exception status listing to these patients would ensure more expeditious transplantation and potentially contribute to improved survival.

A prospective study of continuous intravenous milrinone therapy for status IB patients awaiting heart transplant at home.

BACKGROUND: We performed a prospective study to determine the feasibility and safety of continuous intravenous milrinone therapy administered at home in patients listed as Status IB for heart transplant. METHODS: Patients who were Status IB could participate if they met specific criteria including an optimal dose of milrinone < or =0.5 microg/kg/min, presence of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), and no other serious comorbidity. The primary end-point of the study was survival to transplant. Hospitalizations, quality of life and cost comparisons were assessed. RESULTS: From May 1999 through October 2002, a total of 60 patients (51 men, 9 women), aged 55.5 +/- 8.4 years, entered the study. Before milrinone therapy, cardiac index was 1.98 +/- 0.66 liters/min/m2 and peak oxygen consumption was 11.4 +/- 2.6 ml/kg/min. Mean time in the study was 160.1 +/- 151.8 days. Fifty-three patients (88.3%) underwent heart transplant. There were only 2 deaths during the study. There were 89 hospital admissions in 46 patients over the 43-month follow-up period; 58 of these admissions were for heart failure. There were 6 episodes of ICD firing for ventricular tachycardia. Quality-of-life measures in a sub-group of patients significantly improved 1 month after discharge. Substantial estimated cost savings occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous intravenous milrinone therapy can be safely administered at home in selected patients with advanced heart failure who are listed for transplant. This strategy may be an acceptable alternative to prolonged hospitalization for patients dependent on continuous inotropic support. Re-hospitalization is to be expected. An implantable cardioverter-defibrillator should be present due to the incidence of ventricular tachycardia.