Serial Shock Severity Assessment Within 72 Hours After Diagnosis: A Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Report.

BACKGROUND: The Cardiogenic Shock Working Group-modified Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (CSWG-SCAI) staging was developed to risk stratify cardiogenic shock (CS) severity. Data showing progressive changes in SCAI stages and outcomes are limited. OBJECTIVES: We investigated serial changes in CSWG-SCAI stages and outcomes of patients presenting with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (MI-CS) and heart failure-related CS (HF-CS). METHODS: The multicenter CSWG registry was queried. CSWG-SCAI stages were computed at CS diagnosis and 24, 48, and 72 hours. RESULTS: A total of 3,268 patients (57% HF-CS; 27% MI-CS) were included. At CS diagnosis, CSWG-SCAI stage breakdown was 593 (18.1%) stage B, 528 (16.2%) stage C, 1,659 (50.8%) stage D, and 488 (14.9%) noncardiac arrest stage E. At 24 hours, >50% of stages B and C patients worsened, but 86% of stage D patients stayed at stage D. Among stage E patients, 54% improved to stage D and 36% stayed at stage E by 24 hours. Minimal SCAI stage changes occurred beyond 24 hours. SCAI stage trajectories were similar between MI-CS and HF-CS groups. Within 24 hours, unadjusted mortality rates of patients with any SCAI stage worsening or improving were 44.6% and 34.2%, respectively. Patients who presented in or progressed to stage E by 24 hours had the worst prognosis. Survivors had lower lactate than nonsurvivors. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with CS changed SCAI stages within 24 hours from CS diagnosis. Stage B patients were at high risk of worsening shock severity by 24 hours, associated with excess mortality. Early CS recognition and serial assessment may improve risk stratification.

Three-year outcomes after bridge to transplantation ECMO-pre- and post-2018 UNOS revised heart allocation system.

BACKGROUND: Utilization of temporary mechanical circulatory support, including veno-arterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to heart transplantation (HT) has increased significantly under the revised United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) donor heart allocation system. The revised heart allocation system aimed to lower waitlist times and mortality for the most critically ill patients requiring biventricular, nondischargeable, mechanical circulatory support. While previous reports have shown improved 1-year post-HT survival in the current era, 3-year survival and factors associated with mortality among bridge-to-transplant (BTT) extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) patients are not well described. METHODS: We queried the UNOS database for all adult (age ≥ 18 years) heart-only transplants performed between 2010 and 2019. Patients were stratified as either pre- (January 2010-September 2018; era 1) or post-allocation change (November 2018-December 2019; era 2) cohort based on their HT date. Baseline recipient characteristics and post-transplant outcomes were compared. A Cox regression analysis was performed to explore risk factors for 3-year mortality among BTT-ECMO patients in era 2. For each era, 3-year mortality was also compared between BTT ECMO patients and those transplanted without ECMO support. RESULTS: During the study period, 116 patients were BTT ECMO during era 1 and 154 patients during era 2. Baseline recipient characteristics were similar in both groups. Median age was 48 (36-58 interquartile range (IQR)) years in era 2, while it was 51 (27-58 IQR) years in era 1. The majority of BTT-ECMO patients were males in both era 2 and era 1 (77.7% vs 71.5%, p = 0.28). Median ECMO run times while listed for HT were significantly shorter (4 days vs 7 days, p < 0.001) in era 2. Waitlist mortality among BTT ECMO patients was also significantly lower in era 2 (6.3% vs 19.3%, p < 0.001). Post-HT survival at 6 months (94.2% vs 75.9%, p < 0.001), 1 year (90.3% vs 74.2%, p < 0.001), and 3 years (87% vs 66.4%, p < 0.001) was significantly improved in era 2 as compared to era 1. Graft failure at 1 year (10.3% vs 25.8%, p = 0.0006) and 3 years (13.6% vs 33.6%, p = 0.0001) was also significantly lower in era 2 compared to era 1. Three-year survival among BTT ECMO patients in era 2 was similar to that of patients transplanted in era 2 without ECMO support (87% vs 85.7%, p = 0.75). In multivariable analysis of BTT-ECMO patients in era 2, every 1 kg/m2 increase in body mass index was associated with higher mortality at 3 years (hazard ratio (HR) 1.09, 95% CI 1.02-1.15, p = 0.006). Similarly, both post-HT stroke (HR 5.58, 95% CI 2.57-12.14, p < 0.001) and post-HT renal failure requiring hemodialysis (HR 4.36, 95% CI 2.43-7.82, p < 0.001) were also associated with 3-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Three years post-HT survival in patients bridged with ECMO has significantly improved under the revised donor heart allocation system compared to prior system. BTT ECMO recipients under the revised system have significantly shorter ECMO waitlist run times, lower waitlist mortality and 3-year survival similar to those not bridged with ECMO. Overall, the revised allocation system has allowed more rapid transplantation of the sickest patients without a higher post-HT mortality.

Myocardial Recovery in Cardiogenic Shock.

The overarching goal of cardiogenic shock (CS) therapy is ensuring long-term survival. In recent years, increasing emphasis has been placed on analyzing mechanisms to improve outcomes in CS. This includes averting in-hospital mortality, modifying the disease process by promoting heart recovery while avoiding multiorgan failure, and circumventing complications related to both CS and treatment strategies deployed to treat CS. Heart replacement therapies represent a viable strategy for long-term survival but are restricted to a small, select percentage of patients. In this review we focus on pathophysiology of the shock state, with an emphasis on addressing reversible etiologies contributing to the decompensated state, optimizing physiological factors for recovery, and identifying therapeutic targets to promote recovery. We also review the known predictors of myocardial recovery, regardless of the etiology of CS. Lastly, we highlight the current gaps in knowledge in this field and support additional high-quality studies focusing on myocardial recovery in CS.

Dynamic Risk Estimation of Adverse Events in Ambulatory LVAD Patients: A MOMENTUM 3 Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hemocompatibility-related adverse events affect patients after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation but are hard to predict. OBJECTIVES: Dynamic risk modeling with a multistate model can predict risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), stroke, or death in ambulatory patients. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the MOMENTUM 3 (Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3) trial. HeartMate 3 LVAD recipients who survived to hospital discharge and were followed for up to 2 years. A total of 145 variables were included in the multistate model with multivariate logistic regression. Model performance was assessed with the area under the curve in a holdout validation cohort. A risk stratification tool was created by dividing patients into categories of predicted risk using the final model variables and associated OR. RESULTS: Among 2,056 LVAD patients, the median age was 59.4 years (20.4% women, 28.6% Black). At 2 years, the incidence of GIB, stroke, and death was 25.6%, 6.0%, and 12.3%, respectively. The multistate model included 39 total variables to predict risk of GIB (16 variables), stroke (10 variables), and death (19 variables). When ambulatory patients were classified according to their risk category, the 30-day observed event rate in the highest risk group for GIB, stroke, or death was 26.9%, 1.8%, and 4.8%, respectively. The multistate model predicted GIB, stroke, and death at any 30-day period with an area under the curve of 0.70, 0.69, and 0.86, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The multistate model informs 30-day risk in ambulatory LVAD recipients and allows recalculation of risk as new patient-specific data become available. The model allows for accurate risk stratification that predicts impending adverse events and may guide clinical decision making. (MOMENTUM 3 IDE Clinical Study Protocol; NCT02224755).

Mechanical Preload Reduction: Harnessing a Cornerstone of Heart Failure Management to Improve Clinical Outcomes.

Decongestion is a cornerstone therapeutic goal for those presenting with decompensated heart failure. Current approaches to clinical decongestion include reducing cardiac preload, which is typically limited to diuretics and hemofiltration. Several new technologies designed to mechanically reduce cardiac preload are in development. In this review, we discuss the pathophysiology of decompensated heart failure; the central role of targeting cardiac preload; emerging mechanical preload reduction technologies; and potential application of these devices.

Integrating molecular and clinical variables to predict myocardial recovery.

Mechanical unloading and circulatory support with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) mediate significant myocardial improvement in a subset of advanced heart failure (HF) patients. The clinical and biological phenomena associated with cardiac recovery are under intensive investigation. Left ventricular (LV) apical tissue, alongside clinical data, were collected from HF patients at the time of LVAD implantation (n=208). RNA was isolated and mRNA transcripts were identified through RNA sequencing and confirmed with RT-qPCR. To our knowledge this is the first study to combine transcriptomic and clinical data to derive predictors of myocardial recovery. We used a bioinformatic approach to integrate 59 clinical variables and 22,373 mRNA transcripts at the time of LVAD implantation for the prediction of post-LVAD myocardial recovery defined as LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥40% and LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) ≤5.9cm, as well as functional and structural LV improvement independently by using LVEF and LVEDD as continuous variables, respectively. To substantiate the predicted variables, we used a multi-model approach with logistic and linear regressions. Combining RNA and clinical data resulted in a gradient boosted model with 80 features achieving an AUC of 0.731±0.15 for predicting myocardial recovery. Variables associated with myocardial recovery from a clinical standpoint included HF duration, pre-LVAD LVEF, LVEDD, and HF pharmacologic therapy, and LRRN4CL (ligand binding and programmed cell death) from a biological standpoint. Our findings could have diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications for advanced HF patients, and inform the care of the broader HF population.

Patient Characteristics and Early Clinical Outcomes With Impella 5.5: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Data regarding outcomes with Impella 5.5 are limited. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize patient and treatment characteristics and early clinical outcomes among patients supported by Impella 5.5. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases from September 2019 to March 2023. Studies reporting outcomes in greater than or equal to 5 patients were included for review. Patient characteristics, treatment characteristics, and early clinical outcomes were extracted. Outcomes included adverse events, survival to hospital discharge, and 30 day survival. Random-effect models were used to estimate pooled effects for survival outcomes. Assessment for bias was performed using funnel plots and Egger's tests. Fifteen studies were included for qualitative review, representing 707 patients. Mean duration of support was 9.9 ± 8.2 days. On meta-analysis of 13 studies reporting survival outcomes, survival to hospital discharge was 68% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58-78%), and 30 day survival was 65% (95% CI, 56-74%) among patients with Impella devices predominantly supported by Impella 5.5 (>60%). There was significant study heterogeneity for these outcomes. Among 294 patients with Impella 5.5 only, survival to discharge was 78% (95% CI, 72-82%) with no significant study heterogeneity. This data present early benchmarks for outcomes with Impella 5.5 as clinical experience with these devices accrues.

Cardiogenic Shock in Older Adults: A Focus on Age-Associated Risks and Approach to Management: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Cardiogenic shock continues to portend poor outcomes, conferring short-term mortality rates of 30% to 50% despite recent scientific advances. Age is a nonmodifiable risk factor for mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock and is often considered in the decision-making process for eligibility for various therapies. Older adults have been largely excluded from analyses of therapeutic options in patients with cardiogenic shock. As a result, despite the association of advanced age with worse outcomes, focused strategies in the assessment and management of cardiogenic shock in this high-risk and growing population are lacking. Individual programs oftentimes develop upper age limits for various interventional strategies for their patients, including heart transplantation and durable left ventricular assist devices. However, age as a lone parameter should not be used to guide individual patient management decisions in cardiogenic shock. In the assessment of risk in older adults with cardiogenic shock, a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach is central to developing best practices. In this American Heart Association scientific statement, we aim to summarize our contemporary understanding of the epidemiology, risk assessment, and in-hospital approach to management of cardiogenic shock, with a unique focus on older adults.

Impact of Interventricular Interaction on Ventricular Function: Insights From Right Ventricular Pressure-Volume Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Interventricular interactions may be responsible for the decline in ventricular performance observed in various disease states that primarily affect the contralateral ventricle. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to quantify the impact of such interactions on right ventricular (RV) size and function using clinically stable individuals with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as a model for assessing RV hemodynamics while LV loading conditions were acutely manipulated by changing device speed during hemodynamic optimization studies (ie, ramp tests). METHODS: The investigators recorded RV pressure-volume loops with a conductance catheter at various speeds during ramp tests in 20 clinically stable HeartMate3 recipients. RESULTS: With faster LVAD speeds and greater LV unloading, indexed RV end-diastolic volume increased (72.28 ± 15.07 mL at low speed vs 75.95 ± 16.90 at high speed; P = 0.04) whereas indexed end-systolic volumes remained neutral. This resulted in larger RV stroke volumes and shallower end-diastolic pressure-volume relationships. Concurrently, RV end-systolic pressure decreased (31.58 ± 9.75 mL at low speed vs 29.58 ± 9.41 mL at high speed; P = 0.02), but contractility, as measured by end-systolic elastance, did not change significantly. The reduction in RV end-systolic pressure was associated with a reduction in effective arterial elastance from 0.65 ± 0.43 mm Hg/mL at low speed to 0.54 ± 0.33 mm Hg/mL at high speed (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Interventricular interactions resulted in improved RV compliance, diminished afterload, and did not reduce RV contractility. These data challenge the prevailing view that interventricular interactions compromise RV function, which has important implications for the understanding of RV-LV interactions in various disease states, including post-LVAD RV dysfunction.

Heart failure related cardiogenic shock: An ISHLT consensus conference content summary.

In recent years, there have been significant advancements in the understanding, risk-stratification, and treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS). Despite improved pharmacologic and device-based therapies for CS, short-term mortality remains as high as 50%. Most recent efforts in research have focused on CS related to acute myocardial infarction, even though heart failure related CS (HF-CS) accounts for >50% of CS cases. There is a paucity of high-quality evidence to support standardized clinical practices in approach to HF-CS. In addition, there is an unmet need to identify disease-specific diagnostic and risk-stratification strategies upon admission, which might ultimately guide the choice of therapies, and thereby improve outcomes and optimize resource allocation. The heterogeneity in defining CS, patient phenotypes, treatment goals and therapies has resulted in difficulty comparing published reports and standardized treatment algorithms. An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) consensus conference was organized to better define, diagnose, and manage HF-CS. There were 54 participants (advanced heart failure and interventional cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, critical care cardiologists, intensivists, pharmacists, and allied health professionals), with vast clinical and published experience in CS, representing 42 centers worldwide. State-of-the-art HF-CS presentations occurred with subsequent breakout sessions planned in an attempt to reach consensus on various issues, including but not limited to models of CS care delivery, patient presentations in HF-CS, and strategies in HF-CS management. This consensus report summarizes the contemporary literature review on HF-CS presented in the first half of the conference (part 1), while the accompanying document (part 2) covers the breakout sessions where the previously agreed upon clinical issues were discussed with an aim to get to a consensus.

Consensus statements from the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus conference: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock.

The last decade has brought tremendous interest in the problem of cardiogenic shock. However, the mortality rate of this syndrome approaches 50%, and other than prompt myocardial revascularization, there have been no treatments proven to improve the survival of these patients. The bulk of studies have been in patients with acute myocardial infarction, and there is little evidence to guide the clinician in those patients with heart failure cardiogenic shock (HF-CS). An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplant consensus conference was organized to better define, diagnose, and manage HF-CS. There were 54 participants (advanced heart failure and interventional cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, critical care cardiologists, intensivists, pharmacists, and allied health professionals) with vast clinical and published experience in CS, representing 42 centers worldwide. This consensus report summarizes the results of a premeeting survey answered by participants and the breakout sessions where predefined clinical issues were discussed to achieve consensus in the absence of robust data. Key issues discussed include systems for CS management, including the "hub-and-spoke" model vs a tier-based network, minimum levels of data to communicate when considering transfer, disciplines that should be involved in a "shock team," goals for mechanical circulatory support device selection, and optimal flow on such devices. Overall, the document provides expert consensus on some important issues facing practitioners managing HF-CS. It is hoped that this will clarify areas where consensus has been reached and stimulate future research and registries to provide insight regarding other crucial knowledge gaps.

Outcomes of Patients Transferred to Tertiary Care Centers for Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock: A Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Consensus recommendations for cardiogenic shock (CS) advise transfer of patients in need of advanced options beyond the capability of "spoke" centers to tertiary/"hub" centers with higher capabilities. However, outcomes associated with such transfers are largely unknown beyond those reported in individual health networks. OBJECTIVES: To analyze a contemporary, multicenter CS cohort with the aim of comparing characteristics and outcomes of patients between transfer (between spoke and hub centers) and nontransfer cohorts (those primarily admitted to a hub center) for both acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) and heart failure-related HF-CS. We also aim to identify clinical characteristics of the transfer cohort that are associated with in-hospital mortality. METHODS: The Cardiogenic Shock Working Group (CSWG) registry is a national, multicenter, prospective registry including high-volume (mostly hub) CS centers. Fifteen U.S. sites contributed data for this analysis from 2016-2020. RESULTS: Of 1890 consecutive CS patients enrolled into the CSWG registry, 1028 (54.4%) patients were transferred. Of these patients, 528 (58.1%) had heart failure-related CS (HF-CS), and 381 (41.9%) had CS related to acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS). Upon arrival to the CSWG site, transfer patients were more likely to be in SCAI stages C and D, when compared to nontransfer patients. Transfer patients had higher mortality rates (37% vs 29%, < 0.001) than nontransfer patients; the differences were driven primarily by the HF-CS cohort. Logistic regression identified increasing age, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, and higher number of vasoactive drugs prior to or within 24 hours after CSWG site transfer as independent predictors of mortality among HF-CS patients. Conversely, pulmonary artery catheter use prior to transfer or within 24 hours of arrival was associated with decreased mortality rates. Among transfer AMI-CS patients, BMI > 28 kg/m2, worsening renal failure, lactate > 3 mg/dL, and increasing numbers of vasoactive drugs were associated with increased mortality rates. CONCLUSION: More than half of patients with CS managed at high-volume CS centers were transferred from another hospital. Although transfer patients had higher mortality rates than those who were admitted primarily to hub centers, the outcomes and their predictors varied significantly when classified by HF-CS vs AMI-CS.

A multicenter evaluation of the HeartMate 3 risk score.

BACKGROUND: The Heartmate 3 (HM3) risk score (HM3RS) was derived and validated internally from within the Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 (MOMENTUM 3) trial population and provides 1- and 2-year mortality risk prediction for patients in those before HM3 left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. We aimed to evaluate the HM3RS in nontrial unselected patients, including those not meeting inclusion criteria for MOMENTUM 3 trial enrollment. METHODS: Patients who underwent HM3 LVAD implant at 1 of 7 US centers between 2017 and 2021, with at least 1-year follow-up, were included in this analysis. Patients were retrospectively assessed for their eligibility for the MOMENTUM 3 trial based on study inclusion and exclusion criteria. HM3RS risk discrimination was evaluated using time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for 1-year mortality for all patients and further stratified by MOMENTUM 3 trial eligibility. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed using the HM3RS-based risk categories. RESULTS: Of 521 patients included in the analysis, 266 (51.1%) would have met enrollment criteria for MOMENTUM 3. The 1- and 2-year survival for the total cohort was 85% and 81%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in survival between those who met and did not meet enrollment criteria at 1 (87% vs 83%; p = 0.21) and 2 years postimplant (80% vs 78%; p = 0.39). For the total cohort, HM3RS predicted 1-year survival with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-0.69, p < 0.001). HM3RS performed better in the subset of patients meeting enrollment criteria: AUC 0.69 (95% CI:0.61-0.77, p < 0.001) compared to the subset that did not: AUC 0.58 (95% CI: 0.49-0.66, p = 0.078). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world evidence, multicenter cohort, 1- and 2-year survival after commercial HM3 LVAD implant was excellent, regardless of trial eligibility. The HM3RS provided adequate risk discrimination in "trial-like" patients, but predictive value was reduced in patients who did not meet trial criteria.

Aspirin and Hemocompatibility Events With a Left Ventricular Assist Device in Advanced Heart Failure: The ARIES-HM3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) enhance quality and duration of life in advanced heart failure. The burden of nonsurgical bleeding events is a leading morbidity. Aspirin as an antiplatelet agent is mandated along with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) with continuous-flow LVADs without conclusive evidence of efficacy and safety. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether excluding aspirin as part of the antithrombotic regimen with a fully magnetically levitated LVAD is safe and decreases bleeding. DESIGN, SETTING, and PARTICIPANTS: This international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of aspirin (100 mg/d) vs placebo with VKA therapy in patients with advanced heart failure with an LVAD was conducted across 51 centers with expertise in treating patients with advanced heart failure across 9 countries. The randomized population included 628 patients with advanced heart failure implanted with a fully magnetically levitated LVAD (314 in the placebo group and 314 in the aspirin group), of whom 296 patients in the placebo group and 293 in the aspirin group were in the primary analysis population, which informed the primary end point analysis. The study enrolled patients from July 2020 to September 2022; median follow-up was 14 months. Intervention: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive aspirin (100 mg/d) or placebo in addition to an antithrombotic regimen. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The composite primary end point, assessed for noninferiority (-10% margin) of placebo, was survival free of a major nonsurgical (>14 days after implant) hemocompatibility-related adverse events (including stroke, pump thrombosis, major bleeding, or arterial peripheral thromboembolism) at 12 months. The principal secondary end point was nonsurgical bleeding events. RESULTS: Of the 589 analyzed patients, 77% were men; one-third were Black and 61% were White. More patients were alive and free of hemocompatibility events at 12 months in the placebo group (74%) vs those taking aspirin (68%). Noninferiority of placebo was demonstrated (absolute between-group difference, 6.0% improvement in event-free survival with placebo [lower 1-sided 97.5% CI, -1.6%]; P < .001). Aspirin avoidance was associated with reduced nonsurgical bleeding events (relative risk, 0.66 [95% confidence limit, 0.51-0.85]; P = .002) with no increase in stroke or other thromboembolic events, a finding consistent among diverse subgroups of patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients with advanced heart failure treated with a fully magnetically levitated LVAD, avoidance of aspirin as part of an antithrombotic regimen, which includes VKA, is not inferior to a regimen containing aspirin, does not increase thromboembolism risk, and is associated with a reduction in bleeding events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04069156.