Extra-cardiac management of cardiogenic shock in the intensive care unit.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome characterized by low cardiac output leading to end-organ hypoperfusion. Organ dysoxia ranging from transient organ injury to irreversible organ failure and death occurs across all CS etiologies but differing by incidence and type. Herein, we review the recognition and management of respiratory, renal and hepatic failure complicating CS. We also discuss unmet needs in the CS care pathway and future research priorities for generating evidence-based best practices for the management of extra-cardiac sequelae. The complexity of CS admitted to the contemporary cardiac intensive care unit demands a workforce skilled to care for these extra-cardiac critical illness complications with an appreciation for how cardio-systemic interactions influence critical illness outcomes in afflicted patients.

Cardiogenic shock trajectories: is the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions definition the right one?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We review the current Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) cardiogenic shock classification system and consider alternatives or iterations that may enhance our current descriptions of cardiogenic shock trajectory. RECENT FINDINGS: Several studies have identified the potential prognostic value of serial SCAI stage re-assessment, usually within the first 24 h of shock onset, to predict deterioration and clinical outcomes across shock causes. In parallel, numerous registry-based analyses support the utility of a more precise assessment of the macrocirculation and microcirculation, leveraging invasive haemodynamics, imaging and additional laboratory and clinical markers. The emergence of machine learning and artificial intelligence capabilities offers the opportunity to integrate multimodal data into high fidelity, real-time metrics to more precisely define trajectory and inform our therapeutic decision making. SUMMARY: Whilst the SCAI staging system remains a pivotal tool in cardiogenic shock assessment, communication and reassessment, it is vital that the sophistication with which we measure and assess shock trajectory evolves in parallel our understanding of the complexity and variability of clinical course and clinical outcomes.

Sex differences in treatments and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and epidemiological meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Women are at higher risk of mortality from many acute cardiovascular conditions, but studies have demonstrated differing findings regarding the mortality of cardiogenic shock in women and men. To examine differences in 30-day mortality and mechanical circulatory support use by sex in patients with cardiogenic shock. MAIN BODY: Cochrane Central, PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched in April 2024. Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials or observational studies, included adult patients with cardiogenic shock, and reported at least one of the following outcomes by sex: raw mortality, adjusted mortality (odds ratio) or use of mechanical circulatory support. Out of 4448 studies identified, 81 met inclusion criteria, pooling a total of 656,754 women and 1,018,036 men. In the unadjusted analysis for female sex and combined in-hospital and 30-day mortality, women had higher odds of mortality (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26-1.44, p < 0.001). Pooled unadjusted mortality was 35.9% in men and 40.8% in women (p < 0.001). When only studies reporting adjusted ORs were included, combined in-hospital/30-day mortality remained higher in women (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06-1.15, p < 0.001). These effects remained consistent across subgroups of acute myocardial infarction- and heart failure- related cardiogenic shock. Overall, women were less likely to receive mechanical support than men (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.57-0.79, p < 0.001); specifically, they were less likely to be treated with intra-aortic balloon pump (OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89, p < 0.001) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (OR = 0.84, 95% 0.71-0.99, p = 0.045). No significant difference was seen with use of percutaneous ventricular assist devices (OR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.51-1.33, p = 0.42). CONCLUSION: Even when adjusted for confounders, mortality for cardiogenic shock in women is approximately 10% higher than men. This effect is seen in both acute myocardial infarction and heart failure cardiogenic shock. Women with cardiogenic shock are less likely to be treated with mechanical circulatory support than men. Clinicians should make immediate efforts to ensure the prompt diagnosis and aggressive treatment of cardiogenic shock in women.

EPidemiology Of Cardiogenic sHock in Scotland (EPOCHS): A multicentre, prospective observational study of the prevalence, management and outcomes of cardiogenic shock in Scotland.

Background: Despite high rates of cardiovascular disease in Scotland, the prevalence and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock are unknown. Methods: We undertook a prospective observational cohort study of consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) or coronary care unit at 13 hospitals in Scotland for a 6-month period. Denominator data from the Scottish Intensive Care Society Audit Group were used to estimate ICU prevalence; data for coronary care units were unavailable. We undertook multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with in-hospital mortality. Results: In total, 247 patients with cardiogenic shock were included. After exclusion of coronary care unit admissions, this comprised 3.0% of all ICU admissions during the study period (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6%-3.5%). Aetiology was acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in 48%. The commonest vasoactive treatment was noradrenaline (56%) followed by adrenaline (46%) and dobutamine (40%). Mechanical circulatory support was used in 30%. Overall in-hospital mortality was 55%. After multivariable logistic regression, age (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06), admission lactate (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.19), Society for Cardiovascular Angiographic Intervention stage D or E at presentation (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.10-4.29) and use of adrenaline (OR 2.73, 95% CI 1.40-5.40) were associated with mortality. Conclusions: In Scotland the prevalence of cardiogenic shock was 3% of all ICU admissions; more than half died prior to discharge. There was significant variation in treatment approaches, particularly with respect to vasoactive support strategy.

The management of heart failure cardiogenic shock: an international RAND appropriateness panel.

BACKGROUND: Observational data suggest that the subset of patients with heart failure related CS (HF-CS) now predominate critical care admissions for CS. There are no dedicated HF-CS randomised control trials completed to date which reliably inform clinical practice or clinical guidelines. We sought to identify aspects of HF-CS care where both consensus and uncertainty may exist to guide clinical practice and future clinical trial design, with a specific focus on HF-CS due to acute decompensated chronic HF. METHODS: A 16-person multi-disciplinary panel comprising of international experts was assembled. A modified RAND/University of California, Los Angeles, appropriateness methodology was used. A survey comprising of 34 statements was completed. Participants anonymously rated the appropriateness of each statement on a scale of 1 to 9 (1-3 as inappropriate, 4-6 as uncertain and as 7-9 appropriate). RESULTS: Of the 34 statements, 20 were rated as appropriate and 14 were rated as inappropriate. Uncertainty existed across all three domains: the initial assessment and management of HF-CS; escalation to temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support (tMCS); and weaning from tMCS in HF-CS. Significant disagreement between experts (deemed present when the disagreement index exceeded 1) was only identified when deliberating the utility of thoracic ultrasound in the immediate management of HF-CS. CONCLUSION: This study has highlighted several areas of practice where large-scale prospective registries and clinical trials in the HF-CS population are urgently needed to reliably inform clinical practice and the synthesis of future societal HF-CS guidelines.

Sex-related differences in patients presenting with heart failure-related cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for a significant proportion of all CS cases. Nevertheless, there is a lack of evidence on sex-related differences in HF-CS, especially regarding use of treatment and mortality risk in women vs. men. This study aimed to investigate potential differences in clinical presentation, use of treatments, and mortality between women and men with HF-CS. METHODS: In this international observational study, patients with HF-CS (without acute myocardial infarction) from 16 tertiary-care centers in five countries were enrolled between 2010 and 2021. Logistic and Cox regression models were used to assess differences in clinical presentation, use of treatments, and 30-day mortality in women vs. men with HF-CS. RESULTS: N = 1030 patients with HF-CS were analyzed, of whom 290 (28.2%) were women. Compared to men, women were more likely to be older, less likely to have a known history of heart failure or cardiovascular risk factors, and lower rates of highly depressed left ventricular ejection fraction and renal dysfunction. Nevertheless, CS severity as well as use of treatments were comparable, and female sex was not independently associated with 30-day mortality (53.0% vs. 50.8%; adjusted HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.75-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: In this large HF-CS registry, sex disparities in risk factors and clinical presentation were observed. Despite these differences, the use of treatments was comparable, and both sexes exhibited similarly high mortality rates. Further research is necessary to evaluate if sex-tailored treatment, accounting for the differences in cardiovascular risk factors and clinical presentation, might improve outcomes in HF-CS.

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.

Clinical presentation, shock severity and mortality in patients with de novo versus acute-on-chronic heart failure-related cardiogenic shock.

AIMS: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for a significant proportion of CS cases. Whether patients with de novo HF and those with acute-on-chronic HF in CS differ in clinical characteristics and outcome remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate differences in clinical presentation and mortality between patients with de novo and acute-on-chronic HF-CS. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this international observational study, patients with HF-CS from 16 tertiary care centres in five countries were enrolled between 2010 and 2021. To investigate differences in clinical presentation and 30-day mortality, adjusted logistic/Cox regression models were fitted. Patients (n = 1030) with HF-CS were analysed, of whom 486 (47.2%) presented with de novo HF-CS and 544 (52.8%) with acute-on-chronic HF-CS. Traditional markers of CS severity (e.g. blood pressure, heart rate and lactate) as well as use of treatments were comparable between groups. However, patients with acute-on-chronic HF-CS were more likely to have a higher CS severity and also a higher mortality risk, after adjusting for relevant confounders (de novo HF 45.5%, acute-on-chronic HF 55.9%, adjusted hazard ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.72, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: In this large HF-CS cohort, acute-on-chronic HF-CS was associated with more severe CS and higher mortality risk compared to de novo HF-CS, although traditional markers of CS severity and use of treatments were comparable. These findings highlight the vast heterogeneity of patients with HF-CS, emphasize that HF chronicity is a relevant disease modifier in CS, and indicate that future clinical trials should account for this.

Association between left ventricular ejection fraction, mortality and use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Currently, use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock (CS) is predominantly guided by shock-specific markers, and not by markers of cardiac function. We hypothesise that left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) can identify patients with a higher likelihood to benefit from MCS and thus help to optimise their expected benefit. METHODS: Patients with non-ischaemic CS and available data on LVEF from 16 tertiary-care centres in five countries were analysed. Cox regression models were fitted to evaluate the association between LVEF and mortality, as well as the interaction between LVEF, MCS use and mortality. RESULTS: N = 807 patients were analysed: mean age 63 [interquartile range (IQR) 51.5-72.0] years, 601 (74.5%) male, lactate 4.9 (IQR 2.6-8.5) mmol/l, LVEF 20 (IQR 15-30) %. Lower LVEF was more frequent amongst patients with more severe CS, and MCS was more likely used in patients with lower LVEF. There was no association between LVEF and 30-day mortality risk in the overall study cohort. However, there was a significant interaction between MCS use and LVEF, indicating a lower 30-day mortality risk with MCS use in patients with LVEF ≤ 20% (hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.51-1.02 for LVEF ≤ 20% vs. hazard ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.85-2.01 for LVEF > 20%, interaction-p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: This retrospective study may indicate a lower mortality risk with MCS use only in patients with severely reduced LVEF. This may propose the inclusion of LVEF as an adjunctive parameter for MCS decision-making in non-ischaemic CS, aiming to optimise the benefit-risk ratio.

Extending the 'host response' paradigm from sepsis to cardiogenic shock: evidence, limitations and opportunities.

Recent clinical and research efforts in cardiogenic shock (CS) have largely focussed on the restoration of the low cardiac output state that is the conditio sine qua non of the clinical syndrome. This approach has failed to translate into improved outcomes, and mortality has remained static at 30-50%. There is an unmet need to better delineate the pathobiology of CS to understand the observed heterogeneity of presentation and treatment effect and to identify novel therapeutic targets. Despite data in other critical illness syndromes, specifically sepsis, the role of dysregulated inflammation and immunity is hitherto poorly described in CS. High-dimensional molecular profiling, particularly through leukocyte transcriptomics, may afford opportunity to better characterise subgroups of patients with shared mechanisms of immune dysregulation. In this state-of-the-art review, we outline the rationale for considering molecular subtypes of CS. We describe how high-dimensional molecular technologies can be used to identify these subtypes, and whether they share biological features with sepsis and other critical illness states. Finally, we propose how the identification of molecular subtypes of patients may enrich future clinical trial design and identification of novel therapies for CS.

Standardized Definitions for Cardiogenic Shock Research and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: Scientific Expert Panel From the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC).

The Shock Academic Research Consortium is a multi-stakeholder group, including representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies, industry, and payers, convened to develop pragmatic consensus definitions useful for the evaluation of clinical trials enrolling patients with cardiogenic shock, including trials evaluating mechanical circulatory support devices. Several in-person and virtual meetings were convened between 2020 and 2022 to discuss the need for developing the standardized definitions required for evaluation of mechanical circulatory support devices in clinical trials for cardiogenic shock patients. The expert panel identified key concepts and topics by performing literature reviews, including previous clinical trials, while recognizing current challenges and the need to advance evidence-based practice and statistical analysis to support future clinical trials. For each category, a lead (primary) author was assigned to perform a literature search and draft a proposed definition, which was presented to the subgroup. These definitions were further modified after feedback from the expert panel meetings until a consensus was reached. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel recommendations focused on outcome definitions, including efficacy and safety.

Time for a rethink in cardiogenic shock: the shock to survival framework document.

Cardiogenic shock remains a time-critical, complex syndrome that continues to present challenges to clinicians and healthcare systems. Despite advances in the fields of cardiovascular and critical care medicine, mortality remains high. This article summarises the recent shock to survival document, which outlined the current and ideal future state of cardiogenic shock care nationally to improve patient outcomes. Shock to survival emphasises the need for education and training in the early recognition of the hypoperfusion that is pathognomomic of cardiogenic shock. Improved provision of focused cardiac ultrasound is essential to confirm a cardiac cause. Early identification of the patient with cardiogenic shock should be supported by access to defined pathways of care, including specialist shock centres and multiprofessional teams with domain expertise and the capability to manage the myriad of causative aetiologies. Given the absence of high-quality data to inform practice nationally, robust datasets are an unmet need to inform best practice, guide design of clinical services and pathways and drive innovation through research and clinical trials.

The role of temporary mechanical circulatory support in de novo heart failure syndromes with cardiogenic shock: A contemporary review.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex clinical syndrome with a high mortality rate. It can occur to due to multiple etiologies of cardiovascular disease and is phenotypically heterogeneous. Acute myocardial infarction-related CS (AMI-CS) has historically been the most prevalent cause, and thus, research and guidance have focused primarily on this. Recent data suggest that the burden of non-ischemic CS is increasing in the population of patents requiring intensive care admission. There is, however, a paucity of data and guidelines to inform the management of these patients who fall into two broad groups: those with existing heart failure and CS and those with no known history of heart failure who present with "de novo" CS. The use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has expanded across all etiologies, despite its high cost, resource intensity, complication rates, and lack of high-quality outcome data. Herein, we discuss the currently available evidence on the role of MCS in the management of patients with de novo CS to include fulminant myocarditis, right ventricular (RV) failure, Takotsubo syndrome, post-partum cardiomyopathy, and CS due to valve lesions and other cardiomyopathies.

In perspective: the patient at the heart of research in acute cardiovascular care.

Patient and public involvement is a fundamental part of research design and is increasingly required by research funders and regulators. In addition to the moral and ethical arguments in its favour, it has the potential to improve the accessibility and transparency of research and to optimize study recruitment and retention. Whilst clinical trials in acute cardiovascular care have traditionally focussed on 'hard' outcomes, such as mortality or major adverse cardiovascular events, there is increasing recognition that these fail to capture the full breadth of patient experience. Patient-centred outcomes aim to measure things of greater value to patients, using validated tools to quantify symptoms, patient self-reports, or novel outcomes such as days alive and outside hospital. This In Perspective commentary explores the rationale behind patient and public involvement and the background to and evidence supporting the use of patient-centred outcomes and discusses potential challenges and how they can be mitigated.

Use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock.

AIMS: Despite its high incidence and mortality risk, there is no evidence-based treatment for non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock (CS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for non-ischaemic CS treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this multicentre, international, retrospective study, data from 890 patients with non-ischaemic CS, defined as CS due to severe de-novo or acute-on-chronic heart failure with no need for urgent revascularization, treated with or without active MCS, were collected. The association between active MCS use and the primary endpoint of 30-day mortality was assessed in a 1:1 propensity-matched cohort. MCS was used in 386 (43%) patients. Patients treated with MCS presented with more severe CS (37% vs. 23% deteriorating CS, 30% vs. 25% in extremis CS) and had a lower left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline (21% vs. 25%). After matching, 267 patients treated with MCS were compared with 267 patients treated without MCS. In the matched cohort, MCS use was associated with a lower 30-day mortality (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.59-0.97). This finding was consistent through all tested subgroups except when CS severity was considered, indicating risk reduction especially in patients with deteriorating CS. However, complications occurred more frequently in patients with MCS; e.g. severe bleeding (16.5% vs. 6.4%) and access-site related ischaemia (6.7% vs. 0%). CONCLUSION: In patients with non-ischaemic CS, MCS use was associated with lower 30-day mortality as compared to medical therapy only, but also with more complications. Randomized trials are needed to validate these findings.

The Intersection Between Heart Failure and Critical Care Cardiology: An International Perspective on Structure, Staffing, and Design Considerations.

The overall patient population in contemporary cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) has only increased with respect to patient acuity, complexity, and illness severity. The current population has more cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities, a higher prevalence of multiorgan injury, and consumes more critical care resources than previously. Patients with heart failure (HF) now occupy a large portion of contemporary tertiary or quaternary care CICU beds around the world. In this review, we discuss the core issues that relate to the care of critically ill patients with HF, including global perspectives on the organization, designation, and collaboration of CICUs regionally and across institutions, as well as unique models for provisioning care for patients with HF within a health care setting. The latter includes a discussion of traditional and emerging models, specialized HF units, the makeup and implementation of multidisciplinary team-based decision-making, and cardiac critical care admission and triage practices. This article illustrates the ways in which critically ill patients with HF have helped to shape contemporary CICUs throughout the world and explores how these very patients will similarly help to inform the future maturation of these specialized critical care units. Finally, we will critically examine broad, contemporary, international models of HF and cardiac critical care delivery in North America, Europe, South America, and Asia, and conclude with opportunities for the further investigation and generation of evidence for care delivery.