Clinical outcomes among cardiogenic shock patients supported with high-capacity Impella axial flow pumps: A report from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group.

BACKGROUND: The Impella 5.0 and 5.5 pumps (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) are large-bore transvalvular micro-axial assist devices used in cardiogenic shock (CS) for patients requiring high-capacity flow. Despite their increasing use, real-world data regarding indications, rates of utilization and clinical outcomes with this therapy are limited. The objective of our study was to examine clinical profiles and outcomes of patients in a contemporary, real-world CS registry of patients who received an Impella 5.0/5.5 alone or in combination with other temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices. METHODS: The CS Working Group (CSWG) Registry includes patients from 34 US hospitals. For this analysis, data from patients who received an Impella 5.0/5.5 between 2020-2023 were analyzed. Use of Impella 5.0/5.5 with or without additional tMCS therapies, duration of support, adverse events and outcomes at hospital discharge were studied. Adverse events including stroke, limb ischemia, bleeding and hemolysis were not standardized by the registry but reported per individual CSWG Primary Investigator discretion. For those who survived, rates of native heart recovery (NHR) or heart replacement therapy (HRT) including heart transplant (HT), or durable ventricular assist device (VAD) were recorded. We also assessed outcomes based on shock etiology (acute myocardial infarction or MI-CS vs. heart failure-related CS or HF-CS). RESULTS: Among 6,205 patients, 754 received an Impella 5.0/5.5 (12.1%), including 210 MI-CS (27.8%) and 484 HF-CS (64.1%) patients. Impella 5.0/5.5 was used as the sole tMCS device in 32% of patients, while 68% of patients received a combination of tMCS devices. Impella cannulation sites were available for 524/754 (69.4%) of patients, with 93.5% axillary configuration. Survival to hospital discharge for those supported with an Impella 5.0/5.5 was 67%, with 20.4% NHR and 45.5% HRT. Compared to HF-CS, patients with MI-CS supported on Impella 5.0/5.5 had higher in-hospital mortality (45.2% vs 26.2%, p < 0.001) and were less likely to receive HRT (22.4% vs 56.6%, p < 0.001. For patients receiving a combination of tMCS during hospitalization, this was associated with higher rates of limb ischemia (9% vs. 3%, p < 0.01), bleeding (52% vs 33%, p < 0.01), and mortality (38% vs 25%; p < 0.001) compared to Impella 5.0/5.5 alone. Among Impella 5.0/5.5 recipients, the median duration of pump support was 12.9 days (IQR: 6.8-22.9) and longer in patients bridged to HRT (14 days; IQR: 7.7-28.4). CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-center cohort of patients with CS, use of Impella 5.0/5.5 was associated with an overall survival of 67.1% and high rates of HRT. Lower adverse event rates were observed when Impella 5.0/5.5 was the sole support device used. Further study is required to determine whether a strategy of early Impella 5.0/5.5 use for CS improves survival. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: High capacity Impella heart pumps are capable of provide up to 5.5 liter/min of flow while upper body surgical placement allows for ambulation. Patients with advanced cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction or heart failure requiring temporary mechanical circulatory support may benefit from upfront use of Impella 5.5 to improve overall survival, including native heart recovery or successful bridge to durable left ventricular assist device surgery or heart transplantation.

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.

Impact of Female Sex on Cardiogenic Shock Outcomes: A Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Report.

BACKGROUND: Studies reporting cardiogenic shock (CS) outcomes in women are scarce. OBJECTIVES: The authors compared survival at discharge among women vs men with CS complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) and heart failure (HF-CS). METHODS: The authors analyzed 5,083 CS patients in the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed with the use of baseline characteristics. Logistic regression was performed for log odds of survival. RESULTS: Among 5,083 patients, 1,522 were women (30%), whose mean age was 61.8 ± 15.8 years. There were 30% women and 29.1% men with AMI-CS (P = 0.03). More women presented with de novo HF-CS compared with men (26.2% vs 19.3%; P < 0.001). Before PSM, differences in baseline characteristics and sex-specific outcomes were seen in the HF-CS cohort, with worse survival at discharge (69.9% vs 74.4%; P = 0.009) and a higher rate of maximum Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions stage E (26% vs 21%; P = 0.04) in women than in men. Women were less likely to receive pulmonary artery catheterization (52.9% vs 54.6%; P < 0.001), heart transplantation (6.5% vs 10.3%; P < 0.001), or left ventricular assist device implantation (7.8% vs 10%; P = 0.01). Regardless of CS etiology, women had more vascular complications (8.8% vs 5.7%; P < 0.001), bleeding (7.1% vs 5.2%; P = 0.01), and limb ischemia (6.8% vs 4.5%; P = 0.001). More vascular complications persisted in women after PSM (10.4% women vs 7.4% men; P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Women with HF-CS had worse outcomes and more vascular complications than men with HF-CS. More studies are needed to identify barriers to advanced therapies, decrease complications, and improve outcomes of women with CS.

Socioeconomic status and in-hospital outcomes for patients undergoing heart transplantation or ventricular assist device implantation.

INTRODUCTION: Although lower socioeconomic status (SES) has been associated with worse in-hospital outcomes among patients with heart failure, the in-hospital outcomes for patients undergoing durable Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) implantation or Heart Transplantation (HT) based on SES have not been well characterized. METHODS: We analyzed data from the National Inpatient Sample of hospitalizations between January 2016 and December 2020 of patients aged 18 and over who underwent a HT or newly implanted LVAD. Quartile classification of the median household income of the patient's residential zip code was used to estimate SES. Multivariable analyses with logistic and linear regression were used to evaluate the effects of SES on inpatient outcomes including inpatient mortality, length of stay, and key inpatient complications. RESULTS: A total of 16,265 weighted hospitalizations for new LVAD implantation and 14,320 weighted hospitalizations for HT were identified. In multivariable analysis, among patients undergoing HT or LVAD implantation respectively, there were no significant differences between the lowest and highest SES quartiles among important in-hospital outcomes including length of stay (adj B-coeff .56, (-3.59)-(4.71), p = .79 and adj B-coeff 2.40, (-.21)-(5.02), p = .07) and mortality (aOR 1.02, .61-1.70, p = .94 and aOR 1.08, .72-1.62, p = .73). There were also no differences based on SES quartile in important inpatient complications including stroke and cardiac arrest. CONCLUSION: In this analysis from the National Inpatient Sample, we demonstrate that SES, evaluated by median zip code income, was not associated with important in-hospital metrics including mortality and length of stay among patients undergoing LVAD or HT.

Outcomes With Single-Site Dual-Lumen Versus Multisite Cannulation for Adults With COVID-19 Respiratory Failure Receiving Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether multisite versus single-site dual-lumen (SSDL) cannulation is associated with outcomes for COVID-19 patients requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry. Propensity score matching (2:1 multisite vs SSDL) was used to control for confounders. PATIENTS: The matched cohort included 2,628 patients (1,752 multisite, 876 SSDL) from 170 centers. The mean ( sd ) age in the entire cohort was 48 (11) years, and 3,909 (71%) were male. Patients were supported with mechanical ventilation for a median (interquartile range) of 79 (113) hours before VV-ECMO support. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was 90-day survival. Secondary outcomes included survival to hospital discharge, duration of ECMO support, days free of ECMO support at 90 days, and complication rates. MAIN RESULTS: There was no difference in 90-day survival (49.4 vs 48.9%, p = 0.66), survival to hospital discharge (49.8 vs 48.2%, p = 0.44), duration of ECMO support (17.9 vs 17.1 d, p = 0.82), or hospital length of stay after cannulation (28 vs 27.4 d, p = 0.37) between multisite and SSDL groups. More SSDL patients were extubated within 24 hours (4% vs 1.9%, p = 0.001). Multisite patients had higher ECMO flows at 24 hours (4.5 vs 4.1 L/min, p < 0.001) and more ECMO-free days at 90 days (3.1 vs 2.0 d, p = 0.02). SSDL patients had higher rates of pneumothorax (13.9% vs 11%, p = 0.03). Cannula site bleeding (6.4% vs 4.7%, p = 0.03), oxygenator failure (16.7 vs 13.4%, p = 0.03), and circuit clots (5.5% vs 3.4%, p = 0.02) were more frequent in multisite patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study of COVID-19 patients requiring VV-ECMO, 90-day survival did not differ between patients treated with a multisite versus SSDL cannulation strategy and there were only modest differences in major complication rates. These findings do not support the superiority of either cannulation strategy in this setting.

Application of Cardiogenic Shock Working Group-defined Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (CSWG-SCAI) Staging of Cardiogenic Shock to the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) database.

BACKGROUND: The optimal parameters for defining stages of cardiogenic shock (CS) are not yet known. The Cardiogenic Shock Working Group-defined Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (CSWG-SCAI) staging of CS was developed to provide simple and specific parameters for risk-stratifying patients. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to test whether the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group-defined Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (CSWG-SCAI) staging is associated with in-hospital mortality, using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) database. METHODS: We utilized the open-access MIMIC-IV database, which includes >300,000 patients admitted between 2008 and 2019. We extracted the clinical profile of patients admitted with CS and stratified them into different SCAI stages at admission based on the CSWG criteria. We then tested the association between in-hospital mortality and parameters of hypotension, hypoperfusion, and overall CSWG-SCAI stage. RESULTS: Of the 2463 patients, CS was predominantly caused by heart failure (HF; 54.7 %) or myocardial infarction (MI; 26.3 %). Mortality was 37.5 % for the total cohort, 32.7 % for patients with HF, and 40 % for patients with MI (p < 0.001). Mortality was higher among patients with mean arterial pressure < 65 mmHg, lactate >2 mmol/L, ALT >200 IU/L, pH ≤ 7.2, and more than one drug/device support at baseline. Increasing CSWG-SCAI stages at baseline and maximum CSWG-SCAI stage achieved were significantly associated with in-hospital mortality (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The CSWG-SCAI stages are significantly associated with in-hospital mortality and may be used to identify hospitalized patients at risk of worsening cardiogenic shock severity. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: We analyzed data from 2463 patients with cardiogenic shock using the MIMIC-IV database to investigate the relationship between the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group-defined Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (CSWG-SCAI) staging and in-hospital mortality. The main causes of cardiogenic shock were heart failure (54.7 %) and myocardial infarction (26.3 %). The overall mortality rate was 37.5 %, with a higher rate among patients with myocardial infarction (40 %) compared to those with heart failure (32.7 %). Mean arterial pressure < 65 mmHg, lactate >2 mmol/L, ALT >200 IU/L, and pH ≤ 7.2 were significantly associated with mortality. Increasing CSWG-SCAI stages at baseline and maximum achieved stages were strongly associated with higher mortality (p < 0.05). Therefore, the CSWG-SCAI staging system can be used to risk-stratify patients with cardiogenic shock.

Outcomes With Peripheral Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Suspected Acute Myocarditis: 10-Year Experience From the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry.

BACKGROUND: Acute myocarditis can result in severe hemodynamic compromise requiring venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). Outcomes and factors associated with mortality among myocarditis patients are not well described in the modern ECMO era. METHODS: We queried the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry from 2011 to 2020 for adults with suspected acute myocarditis undergoing peripheral VA-ECMO support. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and was compared to all-comers receiving VA-ECMO in the registry over the same period. Secondary outcomes were rates of bridging to advanced therapies and ECMO complications. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine factors associated with in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Among 850 patients with suspected acute myocarditis receiving peripheral VA-ECMO, the mean age was 41 years, 52% were men, 39% Asian race, and 14.8% underwent extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. During the study period, in-hospital mortality steadily declined and was 58.3% for all all-comers receiving VA-ECMO compared with 34.9% for patients with myocarditis (P<0.001). After multivariable modeling, risk factors for mortality were earlier year of support, older age, higher weight, Asian race, need for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, sepsis, and lower mean arterial pressure and pH prior to ECMO initiation. ECMO complications including bleeding, limb ischemia, infections and ischemic stroke were more common among nonsurvivors and significantly declined during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with all-comers supported with VA-ECMO, in-hospital mortality for patients with acute myocarditis is significantly lower, with nearly two-thirds of patients surviving to discharge. Major modifiable risk factors for mortality were ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation requiring ECMO and markers of illness severity prior to ECMO.

Clinical Course of Patients in Cardiogenic Shock Stratified by Phenotype.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) patients remain at 30% to 60% in-hospital mortality despite therapeutic innovations. Heterogeneity of CS has complicated clinical trial design. Recently, 3 distinct CS phenotypes were identified in the CSWG (Cardiogenic Shock Working Group) registry version 1 (V1) and external cohorts: I, "noncongested;" II, "cardiorenal;" and III, "cardiometabolic" shock. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to confirm the external reproducibility of machine learning-based CS phenotypes and to define their clinical course. METHODS: The authors included 1,890 all-cause CS patients from the CSWG registry version 2. CS phenotypes were identified using the nearest centroids of the initially reported clusters. RESULTS: Phenotypes were retrospectively identified in 796 patients in version 2. In-hospital mortality rates in phenotypes I, II, III were 23%, 41%, 52%, respectively, comparable to the initially reported 21%, 45%, and 55% in V1. Phenotype-related demographic, hemodynamic, and metabolic features resembled those in V1. In addition, 58.8%, 45.7%, and 51.9% of patients in phenotypes I, II, and III received mechanical circulatory support, respectively (P = 0.013). Receiving mechanical circulatory support was associated with increased mortality in cardiorenal (OR: 1.82 [95% CI: 1.16-2.84]; P = 0.008) but not in noncongested or cardiometabolic CS (OR: 1.26 [95% CI: 0.64-2.47]; P = 0.51 and OR: 1.39 [95% CI: 0.86-2.25]; P = 0.18, respectively). Admission phenotypes II and III and admission Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions stage E were independently associated with increased mortality in multivariable logistic regression compared to noncongested "stage C" CS (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the universal applicability of these phenotypes using supervised machine learning. CS phenotypes may inform the design of future clinical trials and enable management algorithms tailored to a specific CS phenotype.

Clinical Presentation and In-Hospital Trajectory of Heart Failure and Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) remains an understudied distinct clinical entity. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to profile a large cohort of patients with HF-CS focused on practical application of the SCAI (Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions) staging system to define baseline and maximal shock severity, in-hospital management with acute mechanical circulatory support (AMCS), and clinical outcomes. METHODS: The Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry includes patients with CS, regardless of etiology, from 17 clinical sites enrolled between 2016 and 2020. Patients with HF-CS (non-acute myocardial infarction) were analyzed and classified based on clinical presentation, outcomes at discharge, and shock severity defined by SCAI stages. RESULTS: A total of 1,767 patients with HF-CS were included, of whom 349 (19.8%) had de novo HF-CS (DNHF-CS). Patients were more likely to present in SCAI stage C or D and achieve maximum SCAI stage D. Patients with DNHF-CS were more likely to experience in-hospital death and in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and they escalated more rapidly to a maximum achieved SCAI stage, compared to patients with acute-on-chronic HF-CS. In-hospital cardiac arrest was associated with greater in-hospital death regardless of clinical presentation (de novo: 63% vs 21%; acute-on-chronic HF-CS: 65% vs 17%; both P < 0.001). Forty-five percent of HF-CS patients were exposed to at least 1 AMCS device throughout hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: In a large contemporary HF-CS cohort, we identified a greater incidence of in-hospital death and cardiac arrest as well as a more rapid escalation to maximum SCAI stage severity among DNHF-CS. AMCS use in HF-CS was common, with significant heterogeneity among device types. (Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Registry [CSWG]; NCT04682483).

Treatment Intensity for the Management of Cardiogenic Shock: Comparison Between STEMI and Non-STEMI.

Background: Cardiogenic shock is a leading cause of mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Objectives: The authors sought to compare clinical characteristics, hospital trajectory, and drug and device use between patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS) and those without (non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock [NSTEMI-CS]). Methods: We analyzed data from 1,110 adult admissions with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) across 17 centers within Cardiogenic Shock Working Group. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. Results: Our study included 1,110 patients with AMI-CS, of which 731 (65.8%) had STEMI-CS and 379 (34.2%) had NSTEMI-CS. Most patients were male (STEMI-CS: 71.6%, NSTEMI-CS: 66.5%) and White (STEMI-CS: 53.8%, NSTEMI-CS: 64.1%). In-hospital mortality was 41% and was similar among patients with STEMI-CS and NSTEMI-CS (43% vs 39%, P = 0.23). Patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest had higher in-hospital mortality in patients with NSTEMI-CS (63% vs 36%, P = 0.006) as compared to patients with STEMI-CS (52% vs 41%, P = 0.16). Similar results were observed for in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with STEMI-CS (63% vs 33%, P < 0.001) and NSTEMI-CS (60% vs 32%, P < 0.001). Only 27% of patients with STEMI-CS and 12% of NSTEMI-CS received both a drug and temporary mechanical circulatory support device during the first 24 hours, which increased to 78% and 61%, respectively, throughout the course of the hospitalization (P < 0.001 for both). Conclusions: Despite increasing use of inotropic and vasoactive support and mechanical circulatory support throughout the hospitalization, both patients with STEMI-CS and NSTEMI-CS remain at increased risk for in-hospital mortality. Randomized controls trials are needed to elucidate whether timing and sequence of escalation of support improves outcomes in patients with AMI-CS.

Mitral Regurgitation and Mortality Risk in Medicare Beneficiaries With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction.

The association of mitral regurgitation (MR) severity and mortality in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is uncertain. We sought to evaluate the relation between MR severity on transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and subsequent all-cause mortality in Medicare beneficiaries with HFpEF. We linked 57,608 patients referred for TTE at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center to Medicare inpatient claims from 2003 to 2017. In those with a history of HF and a physician-reported left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%, we evaluated the relation of MR severity and time to the primary end point of all-cause mortality using Kaplan-Meier methods. A total of 7,778 individuals (14.5%) met inclusion criteria (mean age 75.5 years ± 11.9, 55.9% female). Over a median follow-up of 8.1 years, 2,016 (25.9%) died at a median (interquartile range) of 1.7 (0.3 to 4.1) years. At 1 year, 15.8% with 3 to 4+ MR had died versus 10.5% with 0 to 2+ MR (hazard ratio 1.54, 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 1.95, p <0.001). After multivariable adjustment, 3 to 4+ MR continued to be associated with increased all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 1.94, p = 0.004) except in the subset with atrial fibrillation (interaction p = 0.03) or recent (<3 months) HF hospitalization (p = 0.54). In conclusion, in this large, single-institution retrospective study of Medicare beneficiaries with HFpEF who underwent TTE, moderate-to-severe and severe MR were significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality after multivariable adjustment, except in those with atrial fibrillation or recent HF. Prospective studies are needed to assess the role of MR reduction in mitigating this risk.

Criteria for Defining Stages of Cardiogenic Shock Severity.

BACKGROUND: Risk-stratifying patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) is a major unmet need. The recently proposed Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) staging system for CS severity lacks uniform criteria defining each stage. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to test parameters that define SCAI stages and explore their utility as predictors of in-hospital mortality in CS. METHODS: The CS Working Group registry includes patients from 17 hospitals enrolled between 2016 and 2021 and was used to define clinical profiles for CS. We selected parameters of hypotension and hypoperfusion and treatment intensity, confirmed their association with mortality, then defined formal criteria for each stage and tested the association between both baseline and maximum Stage and mortality. RESULTS: Of 3,455 patients, CS was caused by heart failure (52%) or myocardial infarction (32%). Mortality was 35% for the total cohort and higher among patients with myocardial infarction, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and treatment with increasing numbers of drugs and devices. Systolic blood pressure, lactate level, alanine transaminase level, and systemic pH were significantly associated with mortality and used to define each stage. Using these criteria, baseline and maximum stages were significantly associated with mortality (n = 1,890). Lower baseline stage was associated with a higher incidence of stage escalation and a shorter duration of time to reach maximum stage. CONCLUSIONS: We report a novel approach to define SCAI stages and identify a significant association between baseline and maximum stage and mortality. This approach may improve clinical application of the staging system and provides new insight into the trajectory of hospitalized CS patients. (Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Registry [CSWG]; NCT04682483).

Mechanical Circulatory Support for Right Ventricular Failure.

Right ventricular (RV) failure is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, with in-hospital mortality rates estimated as high as 70-75%. RV failure may occur following cardiac surgery in conjunction with left ventricular failure, or may be isolated in certain circumstances, such as inferior MI with RV infarction, pulmonary embolism or following left ventricular assist device placement. Medical management includes volume optimisation and inotropic and vasopressor support, and a subset of patients may benefit from mechanical circulatory support for persistent RV failure. Increasingly, percutaneous and surgical mechanical support devices are being used for RV failure. Devices for isolated RV support include percutaneous options, such as micro-axial flow pumps and extracorporeal centrifugal flow RV assist devices, surgically implanted RV assist devices and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. In this review, the authors discuss the indications, candidate selection, strategies and outcomes of mechanical circulatory support for RV failure.

Challenges Facing Heart Failure Patients With Limited English Proficiency: A Qualitative Analysis Leveraging Interpreters' Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Limited English proficiency (LEP) heart failure (HF) patients experience worse HF outcomes, including higher readmission rates and emergency department visits. To elucidate the challenges this population faces, the authors interviewed interpreters to identify gaps in care quality and ways to improve care for LEP HF patients. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to understand the challenges facing HF patients with LEP using medical interpreters' perspectives. METHODS: The authors conducted a qualitative study using semistructured interviews with interpreters working at an academic medical center. All interpreters employed by the medical center were eligible to participate. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The authors interviewed 20 interpreters from 9 languages (mean age: 48 ± 14.3 years; mean experience: 16.3 ± 10.6 years). Two themes regarding the challenges of care delivery to LEP HF patients emerged: 1) LEP patients often had a limited understanding of HF etiology, prognosis, and treatment options, and interpreters cited difficulty explaining HF given the complexity of the subject; and 2) practical steps to improve the discharge process for LEP HF patients. Integrating interpreters into both the inpatient and outpatient HF teams was a strongly supported intervention. Additionally, conducting pre-encounter huddles, providing the interpreter service phone number at the time of discharge, involving family members when appropriate, and considering nutrition referrals were all important steps highlighted by interpreters. CONCLUSIONS: This study illuminates challenges that LEP HF patients face and provides potential solutions to improve care for this vulnerable group. Integrating interpreters as part of the HF team and designing practical discharge plans for LEP HF patients could reduce current disparities.

Mechanical Left Ventricular Unloading in Patients Undergoing Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

BACKGROUND: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) increases left ventricular (LV) afterload, potentially provoking LV distention and impairing recovery. LV mechanical unloading (MU) with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or percutaneous ventricular assist device (pVAD) can prevent LV distension, potentially at the risk of more complications, and net clinical benefit remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine the association between MU and outcomes for patients undergoing VA-ECMO. METHODS: The authors queried the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry for adults receiving peripheral VA-ECMO from 2010 to 2019 and stratified them by MU with IABP or pVAD. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes included on-support mortality and complications during VA-ECMO. RESULTS: Among 12,734 VA-ECMO patients, 3,399 (26.7%) received MU: 2,782 (82.9%) IABP and 580 (17.1%) pVAD. MU patients were older (age 56.3 vs 52.7 years) and, before extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, more often required >2 vasopressors (41.7% vs 27.2%) and had respiratory (21.1% vs 15.9%), renal (24.6% vs 15.8%), and liver failure (4.4% vs 3.1%) (all P < 0.001). MU patients had lower in-hospital mortality (56.6% vs 59.3%, P = 0.006), which persisted in multivariable modeling (adjusted OR [aOR]: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.77-0.92; P < 0.001). MU was associated with more cannula site bleeding (aOR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.11-1.40; P < 0.001) and hemolysis (aOR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.03-1.57; P = 0.02). Compared to pVAD, MU patients with IABP had similar mortality (aOR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.64-1.01; P = 0.06) and less medical bleeding (aOR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.31-0.64; P < 0.001), cannula site bleeding (aOR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.54-0.96; P = 0.03), and renal injury (aOR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.62-0.98; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Among adults receiving VA-ECMO, MU was associated with lower in-hospital mortality despite increased complications including hemolysis and cannulation site bleeding. Compared to pVAD, MU with IABP was associated with similar mortality and lower complication rates.

Predictors of Survival and Ventricular Recovery Following Acute Myocardial Infarction Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Therapy.

The use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) following acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) is increasing, but the ability to predict favorable outcomes with support remains limited. We retrospectively reviewed all patients with AMI-CS supported with VA-ECMO between December 2008 and June 2018. One hundred twenty-six patients received VA-ECMO for AMI-CS during the study period; of these, 39 (31.0%) experienced ventricular recovery and were discharged while 87 (69.0%) did not recover, with 71 (56.3%) dying in the hospital and 16 (12.7%) surviving to discharge with either left ventricular assist device or heart transplant. TIMI 3 flow in culprit artery (OR, 4.01; 95% CI, 1.25-12.77; p = 0.02), serum lactate (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.99; p = 0.04), and prompt revascularization (OR, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.18-9.81; p = 0.02) were independent predictors of ventricular recovery. Four variables emerged as independent predictors of in-hospital mortality and were used to create the AMI-ECMO Risk Score: age >70 years, creatinine >1.5 mg/dL, serum lactate > 4.0 mmol/L, and lack of TIMI 3 flow in culprit artery. In patients supported with VA-ECMO for AMI-CS, prompt, successful revascularization, and lower serum lactate were associated with ventricular recovery while younger age, lower serum lactate, and creatinine, and successful revascularization were associated with survival to discharge. The AMI-ECMO risk score is a simple tool that can help risk stratify patients with AMI-CS being considered for VA-ECMO support.

Impella percutaneous left ventricular assist device as mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: A retrospective analysis from a tertiary academic medical center.

OBJECTIVES: To describe hemodynamic efficacy and clinical outcomes of Impella percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). BACKGROUND: Percutaneous LVADs are increasingly used in CS management. However, device-related outcomes and optimal utilization remain active areas of investigation. METHODS: All CS patients receiving pLVAD as mechanical circulatory support (MCS) between 2011 and 2017 were identified. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were analyzed. A multivariable logistic regression model was created to predict MCS escalation despite pLVAD. Outcomes were compared between early and late implantation. RESULTS: A total of 115 CS patients (mean age 63.6 ± 13.8 years; 69.6% male) receiving pLVAD as MCS were identified, the majority with CS secondary to acute myocardial infarction (AMI; 67.0%). Patients experienced significant cardiac output improvement (median 3.39 L/min to 3.90 L/min, p = .002) and pharmacological support reduction (median vasoactive-inotropic score [VIS] 25.4 to 16.4, p = .049). Placement of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) occurred in 48 (41.7%) of patients. Higher pre-pLVAD VIS was associated with subsequent MCS escalation in the entire cohort and AMI subgroup (OR 1.27 [95% CI 1.02-1.58], p = .034 and OR 1.72 [95% CI 1.04-2.86], p = .035, respectively). Complications were predominantly access site related (bleeding [9.6%], vascular injury [5.2%], and limb ischemia [2.6%]). In-hospital mortality was 57.4%, numerically greater survival was noted with earlier device implantation. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with pLVAD for CS improved hemodynamic status but did not uniformly obviate MCS escalation. Mortality in CS remains high, though earlier device placement for appropriately selected patients may be beneficial.