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.

A Standardized and Regionalized Network of Care for Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of standardized care for cardiogenic shock (CS) across regional care networks are poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: The authors compared the management and outcomes of CS patients initially presenting to hub versus spoke hospitals within a regional care network. METHODS: The authors stratified consecutive patients enrolled in their CS registry (January 2017 to December 2019) by presentation to a spoke versus the hub hospital. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included bleeding, stroke, or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. RESULTS: Of 520 CS patients, 286 (55%) initially presented to 34 spoke hospitals. No difference in mean age (62 years vs 61 years; P = 0.38), sex (25% vs 32% women; P = 0.10), and race (54% vs 52% white; P = 0.82) between spoke and hub patients was noted. Spoke patients more often presented with acute myocardial infarction (50% vs 32%; P < 0.01), received vasopressors (74% vs 66%; P = 0.04), and intra-aortic balloon pumps (88% vs 37%; P < 0.01). Hub patients were more often supported with percutaneous ventricular assist devices (44% vs 11%; P < 0.01) and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (13% vs 0%; P < 0.01). Initial presentation to a spoke was not associated with increased risk-adjusted 30-day mortality (adjusted OR: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.49-1.55]; P = 0.64), bleeding (adjusted OR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.49-1.62]; P = 0.70), stroke (adjusted OR: 0.74 [95% CI: 0.31-1.75]; P = 0.49), or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (adjusted OR 0.83 [95% CI: 0.50-1.35]; P = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Spoke and hub patients experienced similar short-term outcomes within a regionalized CS network. The optimal strategy to promote standardized care and improved outcomes across regional CS networks merits further investigation.

Assessing the usability by clinicians of VISION: A hierarchical display of patient-collected physiological information to clinicians.

BACKGROUND: The inability of patients to accurately and completely recount their clinical status between clinic visits reduces the clinician's ability to properly manage their patients. One way to improve this situation is to collect objective patient information while the patients are at home and display the collected multi-day clinical information in parallel on a single screen, highlighting threshold violations for each channel, and allowing the viewer to drill down to any analog signal on the same screen, while maintaining the overall physiological context of the patient. All this would be accomplished in a way that was easy for the clinician to view and use. METHODS: Patients used five mobile devices to collect six heart failure-related clinical variables: body weight, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse rate, blood oxygen saturation, physical activity, and subjective input. Fourteen clinicians practicing in a heart failure clinic rated the display using the System Usability Scale that, for acceptability, had an expected mean of 68 (SD, 12.5). In addition, we calculated the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient of the clinician responses using a two-way, mixed effects model, ICC (3,1). RESULTS: We developed a single-screen temporal hierarchical display (VISION) that summarizes the patient's home monitoring activities between clinic visits. The overall System Usability Scale score was 92 (95% CI, 87-97), p < 0.0001; the ICC was 0.89 (CI, 0.79-0.97), p < 0.0001. CONCLUSION: Clinicians consistently found VISION to be highly usable. To our knowledge, this is the first single-screen, parallel variable, temporal hierarchical display of both continuous and discrete information acquired by patients at home between clinic visits that presents clinically significant information at the point of care in a manner that is usable by clinicians.

Electronic physiologic and subjective data acquisition in home-dwelling heart failure patients: An assessment of patient use and perception of usability.

BACKGROUND: The current approach to the outpatient management of heart failure involves patients recollecting what has happened to them since their last clinic visit. But patients' recollection of their symptoms may not be sufficiently accurate to optimally manage their disease. Most of what is known about heart failure is related to patients' diurnal symptoms and activities. Some mobile electronic technologies can operate continuously to collect data from the time patients go to bed until they get up in the morning. We were therefore interested to evaluate if patients would use a system of selected patient-facing devices to collect physiologic and subjective state data in and around the patients' period of sleep, and if there were differences in device use and perceptions of usability at the device level METHODS: This descriptive observational study of home-dwelling patients with heart failure, between 21 and 90 years of age, enrolled in an outpatient heart failure clinic was conducted between December 2014 and June 2015. Patients received five devices, namely, body weight scale, blood pressure device, an iPad-based subjective states assessment, pulse oximeter, and actigraph, to collect their physiologic (body weight, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, and physical activity) and subjective state data (symptoms and subjective states) at home for the next six consecutive nights. Use was defined as the ratio of observed use over expected use, where 1.0 is observed equals expected. Usability was determined by the overall System Usability Scale score. RESULTS: Participants were 39 clinical heart failure patients, mean age 68.1 (SD, 12.3), 72% male, 62% African American. The ratio of observed over expected use for the body weight scale, blood pressure device, iPad application, pulse oximeter and actigraph was 0.8, 1.0, 1.1, 0.9, and 1.9, respectively. The mean overall System Usability Scale score for each device were 84.5, 89.7, 85.7, 87.6, and 85.2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were able to use all of the devices and they rated the usability of all the devices higher than expected. Our study provides support for at-home patient-collected physiologic and subjective state data. To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the use and usability of electronic objective and subjective data collection devices in heart failure patients' homes overnight.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation as an antidepressant alternative in a patient with Brugada syndrome and recurrent syncope.

Brugada syndrome (BrS) is a common occult cause of sudden cardiac arrest in otherwise healthy-appearing adults. The pathognomonic electrocardiographic pattern may be unmasked only by certain medications, many of which are unknown. We report a case of a depressed but otherwise healthy man with an asymptomatic right bundle branch block on electrocardiography who experienced antidepressant-induced BrS and ultimately recovered with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). After an initial trial of nortriptyline, the patient's depressive symptoms improved; however, he experienced a syncopal event and was subsequently diagnosed as having BrS. Cross titration to bupropion, which had not previously been known to exacerbate BrS, was followed by another cardiac event. As a result, the patient was referred for TMS as a substitute for pharmacotherapy. After 31 TMS sessions over 8 weeks, the patient demonstrated significant improvement by subjective report and objective reduction in his Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores from 10 (moderate) to 1 (minimal). Transcranial magnetic stimulation is a Food and Drug Administration-approved nonpharmacologic treatment for depression. Given the potential lethality of BrS with known and unknown psychopharmacologic agents, providers should consider TMS as first-line therapy in this patient population. Bupropion should be added to the list of agents known to exacerbate this disease.