Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Pathophysiology, Evaluation and Management Considerations: Review of Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock

Update on cardiogenic shock: from detection to team management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The following review is intended to provide a summary of contemporary cardiogenic shock (CS) profiling and diagnostic strategies, including biomarker and hemodynamic-based (invasive and noninvasive) monitoring, discuss clinical differences in presentation and trajectory between acute myocardial infarction (AMI)-CS and heart failure (HF)-CS, describe transitions to native heart recovery and heart replacement therapies with a focus on tailored management and emerging real-world data, and emphasize trends in team-based initiatives and interventions for cardiogenic shock including the integration of protocol-driven care.

RECENT FINDINGS

This document provides a broad overview of contemporary scientific consensus statements as well as data derived from randomized controlled clinical trials and observational registry working groups focused on cardiogenic shock management.

SUMMARY

This review highlights the increasingly important role of pulmonary artery catheterization in AMI-CS and HF-CS cardiogenic shock and advocates for routine application of algorithmic approaches with interdisciplinary care pathways. Cardiogenic shock algorithms facilitate the integration of clinical, hemodynamic, and imaging data to determine the most appropriate patient hemodynamic support platform to achieve adequate organ perfusion and decongestion.

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.

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).

Management of Cardiogenic Shock Unrelated to Acute Myocardial Infarction

Cardiogenic shock is an extreme manifestation of acute decompensated heart failure. Cardiogenic shock is often caused by-and has traditionally been studied in the setting of-acute myocardial infarction (AMI CS); however, there is increasing incidence and recognition of cardiogenic shock not associated with acute myocardial infarction (non-AMI CS) as a distinct entity. Despite decades of study and technologic advancements, cardiogenic shock mortality remains as high as 50%, regardless of etiology. New approaches to shock phenotyping and classification have emerged, with a focus on appropriately matching patient physiology to a growing list of available interventions. Further study is needed to determine whether these efforts will lead to more nuanced use of mechanical circulatory support and improved patient outcomes, especially in non-AMI CS. In the meantime, models of care incorporating multidisciplinary decision making, such as shock teams, may improve patient selection and outcomes.

Keep the Right in Mind-A Focused Approach to Right Ventricle-Predominant Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a highly lethal condition despite many efforts and new interventions. Patients presenting with a rapid onset of hemodynamic instability and subsequent collapse require prompt and appropriate multimodality treatment. Multiple etiologies can lead to heart failure and subsequent shock. As the case prevalence of heart failure increases worldwide, it is of great importance to explore all manners and protocols of presentation and treatment present. With research primarily focusing on CS due to cardiac left-sided pathology, few assessments of right-sided pathology and the subsequent clinical state and treatment have been conducted. This review aims to present an in-depth assessment of the currently available literature, assessing the pathophysiology, presentation and management of CS patients due to right heart failure.

Differences in the Clinical Outcome of Ischemic and Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy in Heart Failure With Concomitant Opioid Use Disorder

Heart Failure (HF) and Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) independently have significant impact on patients and the United States (US) health system. In the setting of the opioid epidemic, research on the effects of OUD on cardiovascular diseases is rapidly evolving. However, no study exists on differential outcomes of ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) in patients with HF with OUD. We performed a retrospective, observational cohort study using National Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2018-2020 databases. Patients aged 18 years and above with diagnoses of HF with concomitant OUD were included. Patients were further classified into ICM and NICM. Primary outcome of interest was differences in all- cause in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcome was incidence of cardiogenic shock. We identified 99,810 hospitalizations that met inclusion criteria, ICM accounted for 27%. Mean age for ICM was higher compared to NICM (63 years vs 56 years, P < 0.01). Compared to NICM, patients with ICM had higher cardiovascular disease risk factors and comorbidities; type 2 diabetes mellitus (46.3 % vs 30.1%, P < 0.01), atrial fibrillation/flutter (33.5% vs 29.9%, P < 0.01), hyperlipidemia (52.5% vs 28.9%, P < 0.01), and Charlson comorbidity index ≥5 was 46.7% versus 29.7%, P < 0.01. After controlling for covariates and potential confounders, we observed higher odds of all-cause in-hospital mortality in patients with NICM (aOR = 1.36; 95% CI:1.03-1.78, P = 0.02). There was no statistical significant difference in incidence of cardiogenic shock between ICM and NICM (aOR = 0.86;95% CI 0.70-1.07, P = 0.18). In patients with HF with concomitant OUD, we found a 36% increase in odds of all-cause in-hospital mortality in patients with NICM compared to ICM despite being younger in age with less comorbidities. There was no difference in odds of in-hospital cardiogenic shock in this study population. This study contributes to the discussion of OUD and cardiovascular diseases which is rapidly developing and requires further prospective studies.

Pharmacological treatment of cardiogenic shock - A state of the art review

Cardiogenic shock is a clinical syndrome of impaired tissue perfusion caused by primary cardiac dysfunction and inadequate cardiac output. It represents one of the most lethal clinical conditions in intensive care medicine with mortality >40%. Management of different clinical presentations of cardiogenic shock includes guidance of cardiac preload, afterload, heart rate and contractility by differential pharmacological modulation of volume, systemic and pulmonary vascular resistance and cardiac output besides reversing the triggering cause. Data from large registries and randomized controlled trials on optimal diagnostic guidance as well as choice of pharmacological agents has accrued significantly in recent years. This state-of-the-art review summarizes the basic concepts of cardiogenic shock, the diagnostic work-up and currently available evidence and guideline recommendations on pharmacological treatment of cardiogenic shock.

SCAI Cardiogenic Shock Classification for Predicting In-Hospital and Long-Term Mortality in Acute Heart Failure

Background

SCAI classification in cardiogenic shock is simple and suitable for rapid assessment. Its predictive behavior in patients with primary acute heart failure (AHF) is not fully known. We aimed to evaluate the ability of the SCAI classification to predict in-hospital and long-term mortality in AHF.

Methods

We conducted a single-center study and performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of consecutive patients admitted with AHF between 2015 and 2020. The primary end points were in-hospital and long-term mortality from all causes.

Results

In total, 856 patients were included. The unadjusted in-hospital mortality was as follows: A, 0.6%; B, 2.7%; C, 21.5%; D 54.3%; and E, 90.6% (log rank, P < .0001), and long-term mortality was as follows: A, 24.9%; B, 24%; C, 49.6%; D, 62.9%; and E, 95.5% (log rank, P < .0001). After multivariable adjustment, each SCAI SHOCK stage remained associated with increased mortality (all P < .001 compared with stage A). With the exception of the long-term end point, there were no differences between stages A and B for adjusted mortality (P = .1).

Conclusions

In a cohort of patients with AHF, SCAI cardiogenic shock classification was associated with in-hospital and long-term mortality. This finding supports the rationale of the classification in this setting.

A Standardized and Regionalized Network of Care for Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

The benefits of standardized care for cardiogenic shock (CS) across regional care networks are poorly understood.

OBJECTIVES

The authors compared the management and outcomes of CS patients initially presenting to hub versus spoke hospitals within a regional care network.

METHODS

The authors stratified consecutive patients enrolled in their CS registry (January 2017 to December 2019) by presentation to a spoke versus the hub hospital. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included bleeding, stroke, or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events.

RESULTS

Of 520 CS patients, 286 (55%) initially presented to 34 spoke hospitals. No difference in mean age (62 years vs 61 years; P = 0.38), sex (25% vs 32% women; P = 0.10), and race (54% vs 52% white; P = 0.82) between spoke and hub patients was noted. Spoke patients more often presented with acute myocardial infarction (50% vs 32%; P < 0.01), received vasopressors (74% vs 66%; P = 0.04), and intra-aortic balloon pumps (88% vs 37%; P < 0.01). Hub patients were more often supported with percutaneous ventricular assist devices (44% vs 11%; P < 0.01) and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (13% vs 0%; P < 0.01). Initial presentation to a spoke was not associated with increased risk-adjusted 30-day mortality (adjusted OR: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.49-1.55]; P = 0.64), bleeding (adjusted OR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.49-1.62]; P = 0.70), stroke (adjusted OR: 0.74 [95% CI: 0.31-1.75]; P = 0.49), or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (adjusted OR 0.83 [95% CI: 0.50-1.35]; P = 0.44).

CONCLUSIONS

Spoke and hub patients experienced similar short-term outcomes within a regionalized CS network. The optimal strategy to promote standardized care and improved outcomes across regional CS networks merits further investigation.

Left Ventricular Unloading in Acute on Chronic Heart Failure: From Statements to Clinical Practice

Cardiogenic shock remains a deadly complication of acute on chronic decompensated heart failure (ADHF-CS). Despite its increasing prevalence, it is incompletely understood and therefore often misdiagnosed in the early phase. Precise diagnosis of the underlying cause of CS is fundamental for undertaking the correct therapeutic strategy. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) is the mainstay of management: identifying and selecting optimal patients through understanding of the hemodynamics and a prompt profiling and timing, is key for success. A recent statement from the American Heart Association provided pragmatic suggestions on tMCS device selection, escalation, and weaning strategies. However, several areas of uncertainty still remain in clinical practice. Accordingly, we present an overview of the main pitfalls that can occur during patients' management with tMCS through a clinical case. This case illustrates the strict interdependency between left ventricular unloading and right ventricular dysfunction in the case of low filling pressures. Moreover, it further illustrates the pivotal role of stepwise escalation of therapy in a patient with an ADHF-CS and its peculiarities as compared to other forms of acute heart failure.

[Pharmaceutical therapy of infarct-related cardiogenic shock]

Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) is a comparably seldom but fatal entity. The definition of cardiogenic shock - unlike e. g. septic shock - is not uniform. Immediate revascularization is central to the patient's prognosis in AMI-CS. Patients who continue to meet the criteria of shock despite revascularization should be hemodynamically phenotyped to allow guidance of personalized subsequent therapy. Antiplatelet medication is the cornerstone for maintaining myocardial (re)perfusion. In hypotension, norepinephrine should be used as the first-line vasopressor, depending on afterload and after compensation for possible hypovolemia. Dobutamine is recommended to increase inotropy, possibly augmented or substituted by calcium sensitizers such as levosimendan. PDE-III (phosphodiesterase enzyme type III)-inhibitors should be used with restraint in myocardial infarction. Dopamine is no longer recommended in Europe. A sasodilator may be an option in highly selected patients with AMI-CS. This review will provide a detailed updated overview on pharmacological treatment modalities and indications in individual patients.

A Holistic View of Advanced Heart Failure

Advanced heart failure (HF) may occur at any level of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF). The latter, which is widely utilized for the evaluation of LV systolic performance and treatment guidance of HF patients, is heavily influenced by LV size and geometry. As the accurate evaluation of ventricular systolic function and size is crucial in patients with advanced HF, the LVEF should be supplemented or even replaced by more specific indices of LV function such as the systolic strain and cardiac power output and size such as the LV diastolic diameters and volumes. Conventional treatment (cause eradication, medications, devices) is often poorly tolerated and fails and advanced treatment (mechanical circulatory support [MCS], heart transplantation [HTx]) is required. The effectiveness of MCS is heavily dependent on heart size, whereas HTx which is effective in the vast majority of the cases is limited by the small donor pool. Expanding the MCS indications to include patients with small ventricles as well as the HTx donor pool are major challenges in the management of advanced HF.

Escalating and De-escalating Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

The use of temporary mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock has increased dramatically despite a lack of randomized controlled trials or evidence guiding clinical decision-making. Recommendations from professional societies on temporary mechanical circulatory support escalation and de-escalation are limited. This scientific statement provides pragmatic suggestions on temporary mechanical circulatory support device selection, escalation, and weaning strategies in patients with common cardiogenic shock causes such as acute decompensated heart failure and acute myocardial infarction. The goal of this scientific statement is to serve as a resource for clinicians making temporary mechanical circulatory support management decisions and to propose standardized approaches for their use until more robust randomized clinical data are available.

The Multicenter Collaborative to Enhance Biologic Understanding, Quality, and Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock (VANQUISH Shock): Rationale and Design

BACKGROUND

Despite efforts to advance therapies in cardiogenic shock (CS), outcomes remain poor. This is likely due to several factors, including major gaps in our understanding of the pathophysiology, phenotyping of patients, and challenges with conducting adequately powered clinical studies. An unmet need exists for a comprehensive multicentre "all-comers" prospective registry to facilitate characterising contemporary presentation, treatment (in a device-agnostic fashion), and short- and intermediate-term outcomes and quality of life (QOL) of CS patients.

METHODS

The Multicenter Collaborative to Enhance Biological Understanding, Quality and Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock (VANQUISH Shock) registry is a prospective observational registry that will study unrestricted adult patients with a primary diagnosis of CS at 4 North American centres with multidisciplinary shock programs. Both acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) and acute heart failure (HF-CS) etiologies will be included, and the registry will be device agnostic and widely inclusive. The primary end point will be survival at 30 days after hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes will include in-hospital adverse events and survival to 6 and 12 months. Patients will also undergo neurologic and health-related QOL assessments with the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) and Short-Form 36 (SF-36) health survey tools before discharge and during follow-up. Serial biospecimens will facilitate biomarker studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The VANQUISH Shock registry provides a unique opportunity to study the pathophysiology, contemporary management, clinical course, and outcomes of CS. By capturing detailed and high-quality longitudinal data, the registry will address existing knowledge gaps and serve as a springboard for future mechanistic clinical studies to advance the field.

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).

Cardiogenic Shock From Heart Failure Versus Acute Myocardial Infarction: Clinical Characteristics, Hospital Course, and 1-Year Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Little is known about clinical characteristics, hospital course, and longitudinal outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) related to heart failure (HF-CS) compared to acute myocardial infarction (AMI; CS related to AMI [AMI-CS]).

METHODS

We examined in-hospital and 1-year outcomes of 520 (219 AMI-CS, 301 HF-CS) consecutive patients with CS (January 3, 2017-December 31, 2019) in a single-center registry.

RESULTS

Mean age was 61.5±13.5 years, 71% were male, 22% were Black patients, and 63% had chronic kidney disease. The HF-CS cohort was younger (58.5 versus 65.6 years, P<0.001), had fewer cardiac arrests (15.9% versus 35.2%, P<0.001), less vasopressor utilization (61.8% versus 82.2%, P<0.001), higher pulmonary artery pulsatility index (2.14 versus 1.51, P<0.01), lower cardiac power output (0.64 versus 0.77 W, P<0.01) and higher pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (25.4 versus 22.2 mm Hg, P<0.001) than patients with AMI-CS. Patients with HF-CS received less temporary mechanical circulatory support (34.9% versus 76.3% P<0.001) and experienced lower rates of major bleeding (17.3% versus 26.0%, P=0.02) and in-hospital mortality (23.9% versus 39.3%, P<0.001). Postdischarge, 133 AMI-CS and 229 patients with HF-CS experienced similar rates of 30-day readmission (19.5% versus 24.5%, P=0.30) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (23.3% versus 28.8%, P=0.45). Patients with HF-CS had lower 1-year mortality (n=123, 42.6%) compared to the patients with AMI-CS (n=110, 52.9%, P=0.03). Cumulative 1-year mortality was also lower in patients with HF-CS (log-rank test, P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HF-CS were younger, and despite lower cardiac power output and higher pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, less likely to receive vasopressors or temporary mechanical circulatory support. Although patients with HF-CS had lower in-hospital and 1-year mortality, both cohorts experienced similarly high rates of postdischarge major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and 30-day readmission, highlighting that both cohorts warrant careful long-term follow-up.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT03378739.

Intra-aortic balloon pump for acute-on-chronic heart failure complicated by cardiogenic shock

The Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is widely implanted as temporary mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock (CS). However, its use is declining following the results of the IABP-SHOCK II trial, which failed to show a clinical benefit of IABP in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) related CS. Acute-on-chronic heart failure has become an increasingly recognized, distinct etiology of CS (HF-CS). The pathophysiology of HF-CS differs from ACS-CS, as it typically represents the progression from a state of congestion (with relatively preserved cardiac output) to a low output state with hypoperfusion. The IABP is a "volume displacement pump" that promotes forward flow from a high-capacitance reservoir to low-capacitance vessels, improving peripheral perfusion and decreasing left ventricular afterload in the setting of high filling pressures. The IABP can improve ventricular-vascular coupling and, therefore, myocardial energetics. Additionally, many HF-CS patients are candidates for cardiac replacement therapies (left ventricular assist device or heart transplantation), and, therefore, may benefit from a "bridge" strategy that stabilizes the hemodynamics and end-organ function in preparation for more durable therapies. Notably, the new United Network for Organ Sharing donor heart allocation system has recently prioritized patients on IABP support. This review describes the role of IABP for the treatment of HF-CS. It also briefly discusses new strategies for vascular access as well as a fully implantable versions for a longer duration of support.