Cardiogenic shock and chronic kidney disease: Dangerous liaisons.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, closely interrelated with cardiovascular diseases, ultimately leading to the failure of both organs - the so-called "cardiorenal syndrome". Despite this burden, data related to cardiogenic shock outcomes in CKD patients are scarce. METHODS: FRENSHOCK (NCT02703038) was a prospective registry involving 772 patients with cardiogenic shock from 49 centres. One-year outcomes (rehospitalization, death, heart transplantation, ventricular assist device) were analysed according to history of CKD at admission and were adjusted on independent predictive factors. RESULTS: CKD was present in 164 of 771 patients (21.3%) with cardiogenic shock; these patients were older (72.7 vs. 63.9years) and had more comorbidities than those without CKD. CKD was associated with a higher rate of all-cause mortality at 1month (36.6% vs. 23.2%; hazard ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.9; P=0.04) and 1year (62.8% vs. 40.5%, hazard ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.09-1.77; P<0.01). Patients with CKD were less likely to be treated with norepinephrine/epinephrine or undergo invasive ventilation or receive mechanical circulatory support, but were more likely to receive renal replacement therapy (RRT). RRT was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death at 1month and 1year regardless of baseline CKD status. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiogenic shock and CKD are frequent "cross-talking" conditions with limited therapeutic options, resulting in higher rates of death at 1month and 1year. RRT is a strong predictor of death, regardless of preexisting CKD. Multidisciplinary teams involving cardiac and kidney physicians are required to provide integrated care for patients with failure of both organs.

Prognostic Utility of Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Shock Stage Approach for Classifying Cardiogenic Shock Severity in Takotsubo Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a significant complication of Takotsubo syndrome (TTS), contributing to heightened mortality and morbidity. Despite this, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) staging system for CS severity lacks validation in patients with TTS and CS. This study aimed to characterize a patient cohort with TTS using the SCAI staging system and assess its utility in cases of TTS complicated by CS. METHODS AND RESULTS: From a TTS national registry, 1591 consecutive patients were initially enrolled and stratified into 5 SCAI stages (A through E). Primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality; secondary end points were TTS-related in-hospital complications and 1-year all-cause mortality. After exclusions, the final cohort comprised 1163 patients, mean age 71.0±11.8 years, and 87% were female. Patients were categorized across SCAI shock stages as follows: A 72.1%, B 12.2%, C 11.2%, D 2.7%, and E 1.8%. Significant variations in baseline demographics, comorbidities, clinical presentations, and in-hospital courses were observed across SCAI shock stages. After multivariable adjustment, each higher SCAI shock stage showed a significant association with increased in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 1.77-29.31) compared with SCAI shock stage A. Higher SCAI shock stages were also associated with increased 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In a large multicenter patient cohort with TTS, the functional SCAI shock stage classification effectively stratified mortality risk, revealing a continuum of escalating shock severity with higher stages correlating with increased in-hospital mortality. This study highlights the applicability and prognostic value of the SCAI staging system in TTS-related CS.

Scrutinizing the Role of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Has Clinical Practice Outpaced the Evidence?

The use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for temporary mechanical circulatory support in various clinical scenarios has been increasing consistently, despite the lack of sufficient evidence regarding its benefit and safety from adequately powered randomized controlled trials. Although the ARREST trial (Advanced Reperfusion Strategies for Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation) and a secondary analysis of the PRAGUE OHCA trial (Prague Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) provided some evidence in favor of VA-ECMO in the setting of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the INCEPTION trial (Early Initiation of Extracorporeal Life Support in Refractory Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) has not found a relevant improvement of short-term mortality with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In addition, the results of the recently published ECLS-SHOCK trial (Extracorporeal Life Support in Cardiogenic Shock) and ECMO-CS trial (Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock) discourage the routine use of VA-ECMO in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock. Ongoing clinical trials (ANCHOR [Assessment of ECMO in Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock, NCT04184635], REVERSE [Impella CP With VA ECMO for Cardiogenic Shock, NCT03431467], UNLOAD ECMO [Left Ventricular Unloading to Improve Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock Patients on VA-ECMO, NCT05577195], PIONEER [Hemodynamic Support With ECMO and IABP in Elective Complex High-risk PCI, NCT04045873]) may clarify the usefulness of VA-ECMO in specific patient subpopulations and the efficacy of combined mechanical circulatory support strategies. Pending further data to refine patient selection and management recommendations for VA-ECMO, it remains uncertain whether the present usage of this device improves outcomes.

Need for a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative-Promoting a Team-Based Model of Care to Improve Outcomes and Identify Best Practices.

Cardiogenic shock continues to carry a high mortality rate despite contemporary care, with no breakthrough therapies shown to improve survival over the past few decades. It is a time-sensitive condition that commonly results in cardiovascular complications and multisystem organ failure, necessitating multidisciplinary expertise. Managing patients with cardiogenic shock remains challenging even in well-resourced settings, and an important subgroup of patients may require cardiac replacement therapy. As a result, the idea of leveraging the collective cognitive and procedural proficiencies of multiple providers in a collaborative, team-based approach to care (the "shock team") has been advocated by professional societies and implemented at select high-volume clinical centers. A slowly maturing evidence base has suggested that cardiogenic shock teams may improve patient outcomes. Although several registries exist that are beginning to inform care, particularly around therapeutic strategies of pharmacologic and mechanical circulatory support, none of these are currently focused on the shock team approach, multispecialty partnership, education, or process improvement. We propose the creation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative-akin to the successful Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Consortium-with a goal to promote sharing of care protocols, education of stakeholders, and discovery of how process and performance may influence patient outcomes, quality, resource consumption, and costs of care.

Percutaneous Left Ventricular Unloading During High-Risk Coronary Intervention: Rationale and Design of the CHIP-BCIS3 Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous coronary intervention for complex coronary disease is associated with a high risk of cardiogenic shock. This can cause harm and limit the quality of revascularization achieved, especially when left ventricular function is impaired at the outset. Elective percutaneous left ventricular unloading is increasingly used to mitigate adverse events in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention, but this strategy has fiscal and clinical costs and is not supported by robust evidence. METHODS: CHIP-BCIS3 (Controlled Trial of High-Risk Coronary Intervention With Percutaneous Left Ventricular Unloading) is a prospective, multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial that aims to determine whether a strategy of elective percutaneous left ventricular unloading is superior to standard care (no planned mechanical circulatory support) in patients undergoing nonemergent high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients are eligible for recruitment if they have severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, extensive coronary artery disease, and are due to undergo complex percutaneous coronary intervention (to the left main stem with calcium modification or to a chronic total occlusion with a retrograde approach). Cardiogenic shock and acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction are exclusions. The primary outcome is a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, stroke, spontaneous myocardial infarction, cardiovascular hospitalization, and periprocedural myocardial infarction, analyzed using the win ratio. Secondary outcomes include completeness of revascularization, major bleeding, vascular complications, health economic analyses, and health-related quality of life. A sample size of 250 patients will have in excess of 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.62 at a minimum of 12 months, assuming 150 patients experience an event across all follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: To date, 169 patients have been recruited from 21 National Health Service hospitals in the United Kingdom, with recruitment expected to complete in 2024. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05003817.

In-hospital outcomes in unhoused patients with cardiogenic shock in the United States: Insights from The National Inpatient Sample 2011-2019.

BACKGROUND: Unhoused patients face significant barriers to receiving health care in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. For unhoused patients with heart failure who are in extremis, there is a lack of data regarding in-hospital outcomes and resource utilization in the setting of cardiogenic shock (CS). HYPOTHESIS: Unhoused patients hospitalized with CS have increased mortality and decreased use of invasive therapies as compared to housed patients. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was queried from 2011 to 2019 for relevant ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes to identify unhoused patients with an admission diagnosis of CS. Baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes between patients were compared. Binary logistic regression was used to adjust outcomes for prespecified and significantly different baseline characteristics (p < .05). RESULTS: We identified a weighted sample of 1 202 583 adult CS hospitalizations, of whom 4510 were unhoused (0.38%). There was no significant difference in the comorbidity adjusted odds of mortality between groups. Unhoused patients had lower odds of receiving mechanical circulatory support, left heart catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention, or pulmonary artery catheterization. Unhoused patients had higher adjusted odds of infectious complications, undergoing intubation, or requiring restraints. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that, despite having fewer traditional comorbidities, unhoused patients have similar mortality and less access to more aggressive care than housed patients. Unhoused patients may experience under-diuresis, or more conservative care strategies, as evidenced by the higher intubation rate in this population. Further studies are needed to elucidate long-term outcomes and investigate systemic methods to ameliorate barriers to care in unhoused populations.

Safety and feasibility of a novel total percutaneous post-closure technique after bedside Impella decannulation in patients with cardiogenic shock.

OBJECTIVES: The Impella (Abiomed) is a widely used percutaneous mechanical circulatory support device for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with cardiogenic shock. This study aimed to determine the safety and feasibility of a non-angio-guided post-closure approach using the Perclose ProGlide (Abbott) to decannulate the Impella in the intensive care unit. METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients who were successfully weaned from mechanical circulatory support using the Impella device between April 2019 and April 2022 at Hamamatsu University School of Medicine. Fifteen patients underwent complete post-closure of the femoral artery access sites at the bedside. Technical success of the post-closure hemostasis technique was defined as no evidence of bleeding or additional medical procedures after manual compression. The safety endpoints comprised the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria. RESULTS: All patients achieved successful hemostasis with this novel technique without surgical conversion. There was no significant bleeding; however, procedure-related vessel occlusion was observed in 1 patient who was recanalized with balloon angioplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Bedside post-closure using the Perclose ProGlide device is a safe and feasible alternative to manual compression and surgical removal of the Impella device with low bleeding or vascular complications rates.

Ascending aortic rupture incidentally revealed at the cath lab: surprising, rare, and life-threatening.

An 80-year-old woman who was an active smoker with neglected long-term hypertension, but no known previous aortic or connective tissue disorders, presented to the emergency department complaining of sudden chest pain associated with cardiogenic shock.

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of post-closure technique using Perclose ProGlide/ProStyle device for large-bore mechanical circulatory support access sites.

PURPOSE: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) using a venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) device or a catheter-type heart pump (Impella) is critical for the rescue of patients with severe cardiogenic shock. However, these MCS devices require large-bore cannula access (14-Fr and larger) at the femoral artery or vein, which often requires surgical decannulation. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we evaluated post-closure method using a percutaneous suture-mediated vascular closure system, Perclose ProGlide/ProStyle (Abbott Vascular, Lake Bluff, IL, Perclose), as an alternative procedure for MCS decannulation. Closure of 83 Impella access sites and 68 VA-ECMO access sites performed using Perclose or surgical method between January 2018 and March 2023 were evaluated. RESULTS: MCS decannulation using Perclose was successfully completed in all access sites without surgical hemostasis. The procedure time of ProGlide was shorter than surgical decannulation for both Impella and VA-ECMO (13 min vs. 50 min; p < 0.001, 21 min vs. 65 min; p < 0.001, respectively). There were no significant differences in the 30-day survival rate and major adverse events by decannulation including arterial dissection requiring endovascular treatment, hemorrhage requiring a large amount of red blood cell transfusion, and access site infection. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the post-closure technique using the percutaneous suture-mediated closure system appears to be a safe and effective method for large-bore MCS decannulation.

Timing of Initiation of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support and Outcomes Among Patients With Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) provides full hemodynamic support for patients with cardiogenic shock, but optimal timing of ECMO initiation remains uncertain. We sought to determine whether earlier initiation of ECMO is associated with improved survival in cardiogenic shock. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed adult patients with cardiogenic shock who received venoarterial ECMO from the international Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) registry from 2009 to 2019, excluding those cannulated following an operation. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the association between time from admission to ECMO initiation and in-hospital death. Among 8619 patients (median, 56.7 [range, 44.8-65.6] years; 33.5% women), the median duration from admission to ECMO initiation was 14 (5-32) hours. Patients who had ECMO initiated within 24 hours (n=5882 [68.2%]) differed from those who had ECMO initiated after 24 hours, with younger age, more preceding cardiac arrest, and worse acidosis. After multivariable adjustment, patients with ECMO initiated >24 hours after admission had higher risk of in-hospital death (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.06-1.36]; P=0.004). Each 12-hour increase in the time from admission to ECMO initiation was incrementally associated with higher adjusted in-hospital mortality rate (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.03-1.10]; P<0.001). The association between longer time to ECMO and worse outcomes appeared stronger in patients with lower shock severity. CONCLUSIONS: Longer delays from admission to ECMO initiation were associated with higher a mortality rate in a large-scale, international registry. Our analysis supports optimization of door-to-support time and the avoidance of inappropriately delayed ECMO initiation.

Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock: Outcomes of the RECOVER III Postapproval Study by Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Shock Stage.

BACKGROUND: The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions proposed a staging system (A-E) to predict prognosis in cardiogenic shock. Herein, we report clinical outcomes of the RECOVER III study for the first time, according to Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock classification. METHODS AND RESULTS: The RECOVER III study is an observational, prospective, multicenter, single-arm, postapproval study of patients with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with Impella support. Patients enrolled in the RECOVER III study were assigned a baseline Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stage. Staging was then repeated within 24 hours after initiation of Impella. Kaplan-Meier survival curve analyses were conducted to assess survival across Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stages at both time points. At baseline assessment, 16.5%, 11.4%, and 72.2% were classified as stage C, D, and E, respectively. At ≤24-hour assessment, 26.4%, 33.2%, and 40.0% were classified as stage C, D, and E, respectively. Thirty-day survival among patients with stage C, D, and E shock at baseline was 59.7%, 56.5%, and 42.9%, respectively (P=0.003). Survival among patients with stage C, D, and E shock at ≤24 hours was 65.7%, 52.1%, and 29.5%, respectively (P<0.001). After multivariable analysis of impact of shock stage classifications at baseline and ≤24 hours, only stage E classification at ≤24 hours was a significant predictor of mortality (odds ratio, 4.8; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world cohort of patients with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with Impella support, only stage E classification at ≤24 hours was significantly predictive of mortality, suggesting that response to therapy may be more important than clinical severity of shock at presentation.

Discussion of hemodynamic optimization strategies and the canonical understanding of hemodynamics during biventricular mechanical support in cardiogenic shock: does the flow balance make the difference?

BACKGROUND: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices may stabilize patients with severe cardiogenic shock (CS) following myocardial infarction (MI). However, the canonical understanding of hemodynamics related to the determination of the native cardiac output (CO) does not explain or support the understanding of combined left and right MCS. To ensure the most optimal therapy control, the current principles of hemodynamic measurements during biventricular support should be re-evaluated. METHODS: Here we report a protocol of hemodynamic optimization strategy during biventricular MCS (VA-ECMO and left ventricular Impella) in a case series of 10 consecutive patients with severe cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction. During the protocol, the flow rates of both devices were switched in opposing directions (+ / - 0.7 l/min) for specified times. To address the limitations of existing hemodynamic measurement strategies during biventricular support, different measurement techniques (thermodilution, Fick principle, mixed venous oxygen saturation) were performed by pulmonary artery catheterization. Additionally, Doppler ultrasound was performed to determine the renal resistive index (RRI) as an indicator of renal perfusion. RESULTS: The comparison between condition 1 (ECMO flow > Impella flow) and condition 2 (Impella flow > VA-ECMO flow) revealed significant changes in hemodynamics. In detail, compared to condition 1, condition 2 results in a significant increase in cardiac output (3.86 ± 1.11 vs. 5.44 ± 1.13 l/min, p = 0.005) and cardiac index (2.04 ± 0.64 vs. 2.85 ± 0.69, p = 0.013), and mixed venous oxygen saturation (56.44 ± 6.97% vs. 62.02 ± 5.64% p = 0.049), whereas systemic vascular resistance decreased from 1618 ± 337 to 1086 ± 306 s*cm-5 (p = 0.002). Similarly, RRI decreased in condition 2 (0.662 ± 0.05 vs. 0.578 ± 0.06, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: To monitor and optimize MCS in CS, PA catheterization for hemodynamic measurement is applicable. Higher Impella flow is superior to higher VA-ECMO flow resulting in a more profound increase in CO with subsequent improvement of organ perfusion.

Reperfusion in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock and Prolonged Interhospital Transport Times.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the preferred revascularization option. Little is known about the efficacy and safety of a pharmacoinvasive approach for patients with cardiogenic shock presenting to a non-PCI hospital with prolonged interhospital transport times. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of geographically extensive ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction network (2006-2021), 426 patients with cardiogenic shock and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction presented to a non-PCI-capable hospital and underwent reperfusion therapy (53.8% pharmacoinvasive and 46.2% pPCI). The primary clinical outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, renal failure requiring dialysis, cardiac arrest, or mechanical circulatory support, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding defined as an intracranial hemorrhage or bleeding that required transfusion was compared in an inverse probability weighted model. The electrocardiographic reperfusion outcome of interest was the worst residual ST-segment-elevation. RESULTS: Patients with pharmacoinvasive treatment had longer median interhospital transport (3 hours versus 1 hour) and shorter median symptom-onset-to-reperfusion (125 minute-to-needle versus 419 minute-to-balloon) times. ST-segment resolution ≥50% on the postfibrinolysis ECG was 56.6%. Postcatheterization, worst lead residual ST-segment-elevation <1 mm (57.3% versus 46.3%; P=0.01) was higher in the pharmacoinvasive compared with the pPCI cohort, but no differences were observed in the worst lead ST-segment-elevation resolution ≥50% (77.4% versus 81.8%; P=0.57). The primary clinical end point was lower in the pharmacoinvasive cohort (35.2% versus 57.0%; inverse probability weighted odds ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.26-0.72]; P<0.01) compared with patients who received pPCI. An interaction between interhospital transfer time and reperfusion strategy with all-cause mortality was observed, favoring a pharmacoinvasive approach with transfer times >60 minutes. The incidence of the primary safety outcome was 10.1% in the pharmacoinvasive arm versus 18.7% in pPCI (adjusted odds ratio, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.14-1.09]; P=0.08). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction presenting with cardiogenic shock and prolonged interhospital transport times, a pharmacoinvasive approach was associated with improved electrocardiographic reperfusion and a lower rate of death, dialysis, or mechanical circulatory support without an increase in major bleeding.