Incidence and clinical outcomes of stroke in ST ‐elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock

Percutaneous coronary intervention with Impella support with and without intra-aortic balloon in cardiogenic shock patients

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical characteristics and in-hospital bleeding complications and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) associated with the use of Impella alone or the combination of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) with Impella in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

All CS patients who underwent PCI and were treated with an Impella mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device were identified. Patients were divided into two groups: having MCS support with Impella alone or with both, IABP and Impella simultaneously (dual MCS group). Bleeding complications were classified by a modified Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) classification. Major bleeding was defined as BARC≥3 bleeding. MACCE was the composite of in-hospital death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events and major bleeding complications.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2018 a total of 101 patients were treated at six tertiary care New York hospitals with either Impella (n = 61) or dual MCS with Impella and IABP (n = 40). Clinical characteristics were similar for both groups. Dual MCS patients presented more often with a STEMI (77.5 % vs. 45.9 %, p = 0.002) and had left main coronary artery intervention (20.3 % vs. 8.6 %, p = 0.03). Major bleeding complications (69.4 % vs. 74.1 %, p = 0.62) and MACCE rates (80.6 % vs. 79.3 %, p = 0.88) were very high but similar in both groups, however access site bleeding complications were lower in patients treated with dual MCS. In-hospital mortality was 29.5 % for the Impella group and 25.0 % for the dual MCS group (p = 062). Access site bleeding complications were lower in in patients treated with dual MCS (5.0 % vs. 24.6 %, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

In CS patients undergoing PCI with either the Impella device alone or with Impella and IABP, major bleeding complications and MACCE rates were high but not significantly different between the two groups. In hospital mortality was relatively low in both MCS groups despite the high-risk characteristics of these patients. Future studies should assess the risks and benefits of the simultaneous use of these two MCS in CS patients undergoing PCI.

Off-Hours versus Regular-Hours Implantation of Peripheral Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

The "weekend effect" has been associated with worse clinical outcomes. Our aim was to compare off-hours vs. regular-hours peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in cardiogenic shock patients.

METHODS

We analyzed in-hospital and 90-day mortality among 147 consecutive patients treated with percutaneous VA-ECMO for medical reasons between July 1, 2013, and September 30, 2022, during regular-hours (weekdays 8:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.) and off-hours (weekdays 10:01 p.m.-7:59 a.m., weekends, and holidays).

RESULTS

The median patient age was 56 years (interquartile range [IQR] 49-64 years) and 112 (72.6%) were men. The median lactate level was 9.6 mmol/L (IQR 6.2-14.8 mmol/L) and 136 patients (92.5%) had a Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) stage D or E. Cannulation was performed off-hours in 67 patients (45.6%). In-hospital mortality was similar in off-hours and regular hours (55.2% vs. 56.3%, p = 0.901), as was the 90-day mortality (58.2% vs. 57.5%, p = 0.963), length of hospital stay (31 days [IQR 16-65.8 days] vs. 32 days [IQR 18-63 days], p = 0.979), and VA-ECMO related complications (77.6% vs. 70.0%, p = 0.305).

CONCLUSIONS

Off-hours and regular-hours percutaneous VA-ECMO implantation in cardiogenic shock of medical cause have similar results. Our results support well-designed 24/7 VA-ECMO implantation programs for cardiogenic shock patients.

Review of Pathophysiology of Cardiogenic Shock and Escalation of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex clinical entity that continues to carry a high risk of mortality. The landscape of CS management has changed with the advent of several temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices designed to provide hemodynamic support. It remains challenging to understand the role of different temporary MCS devices in patients with CS, as many of these patients are critically ill, requiring complex care with multiple MCS device options. Each temporary MCS device can provide different types and levels of hemodynamic support. It is important to understand the risk/benefit profile of each one of them for appropriate device selection in patients with CS.

RECENT FINDINGS

MCS may be beneficial in CS patients through augmentation of cardiac output with subsequent improvement of systemic perfusion. Selecting the optimal MCS device depends on several variables including the underlying etiology of CS, clinical strategy of MCS use (bridge to recovery, bridge to transplant or durable MCS, or abridge to decision), amount of hemodynamic support needed, associated respiratory failure, and institutional preference. Furthermore, it is even more challenging to determine the appropriate time to escalate from one MCS device to another or combine different MCS devices. In this review, we discuss the current available data published in the literature on the management of CS and propose a standardized approach for escalation of MCS devices in patients with CS. Shock teams can play an important role to help in hemodynamic-guided management and algorithm-based step-by-step approach in early initiation and escalation of temporary MCS devices at different stages of CS. It is important to define the etiology of CS, and stage of shock and recognize univentricular vs biventricular shock for appropriate device selection and escalation of therapy.

C1QC, VSIG4, and CFD as Potential Peripheral Blood Biomarkers in Atrial Fibrillation-Related Cardioembolic Stroke

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major risk factor for ischemic stroke. We aimed to identify novel potential biomarkers with diagnostic value in patients with atrial fibrillation-related cardioembolic stroke (AF-CE).Publicly available gene expression profiles related to AF, cardioembolic stroke (CE), and large artery atherosclerosis (LAA) were downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO). Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified and then functionally annotated. The support vector machine recursive feature elimination (SVM-RFE) and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression analysis were conducted to identify potential diagnostic AF-CE biomarkers. Furthermore, the results were validated by using external data sets, and discriminability was measured by the area under the ROC curve (AUC). In order to verify the predictive results, the blood samples of 13 healthy controls, 20 patients with CE, and 20 patients with LAA stroke were acquired for RT-qPCR, and the correlation between biomarkers and clinical features was further explored. Lastly, a nomogram and the companion website were developed to predict the CE-risk rate. Three feature genes (C1QC, VSIG4, and CFD) were selected and validated in the training and the external datasets. The qRT-PCR evaluation showed that the levels of blood biomarkers (C1QC, VSIG4, and CFD) in patients with AF-CE can be used to differentiate patients with AF-CE from normal controls (P < 0.05) and can effectively discriminate AF-CE from LAA stroke (P < 0.05). Immune cell infiltration analysis revealed that three feature genes were correlated with immune system such as neutrophils. Clinical impact curve, calibration curves, ROC, and DCAs of the nomogram indicate that the nomogram had good performance. Our findings showed that C1QC, VSIG4, and CFD can potentially serve as diagnostic blood biomarkers of AF-CE; novel nomogram and the companion website can help clinicians to identify high-risk individuals, thus helping to guide treatment decisions for stroke patients.

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.

Risk of Stroke with Impella Placement Is Not Associated with Access Vessel

Objective: The Impella heart pump is an intravascular microaxial device that provides short-term mechanical circulatory support and can be placed through the femoral, axillary, or central vessels. One of the most feared complications is stroke. It is unclear if patient stroke risk varies based on access vessel. Methods: A retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent Impella placement at an academic institution from January 1, 2007, through September 15, 2018, was performed. Four groups were compared: (1) minimally invasive Impella (femoral or axillary access), (2) minimally invasive Impella upgraded to another minimally invasive Impella, (3) minimally invasive Impella upgraded to a central Impella (ascending aorta), and (4) central Impella. Patient charts were reviewed to identify baseline characteristics. Outcome measures included length of stay, stroke, and mortality. Results: A total of 349 patients (or 407 Impellas) were identified, and the majority of the devices were inserted through a minimally invasive approach (n = 248, 60.9%), while the remainder were implanted via central access (n = 159, 39.1%). Minimally invasive Impellas were upgraded in 44 patients. The risk of stroke for the entire cohort was 10.3% (n = 36), with no difference observed in any particular group. Overall mortality was 44.4% (n = 155). Of the patients who initially received a minimally invasive Impella, those who were upgraded had higher rates of mortality (56.8% vs 39.4%, P = 0.03), postoperative dialysis (50.0% vs 27.4%, P < 0.01), and sepsis (43.2% vs 20.0%, P < 0.01). Conclusions: This study found no statistically significant difference in rates of postoperative stroke based on initial access vessel.

Cerebral derailment after myocardial infarct: mechanisms and effects of the signaling from the ischemic heart to brain

Myocardial infarction (MI) is the leading cause of death among ischemic heart diseases and is associated with several long-term cardiovascular complications, such as angina, re-infarction, arrhythmias, and heart failure. However, MI is frequently accompanied by non-cardiovascular multiple comorbidities, including brain disorders such as stroke, anxiety, depression, and cognitive impairment. Accumulating experimental and clinical evidence suggests a causal relationship between MI and stroke, but the precise underlying mechanisms have not yet been elucidated. Indeed, the risk of stroke remains a current challenge in patients with MI, in spite of the improvement of medical treatment among this patient population has reduced the risk of stroke. In this review, the effects of the signaling from the ischemic heart to the brain, such as neuroinflammation, neuronal apoptosis, and neurogenesis, and the possible actors mediating these effects, such as systemic inflammation, immunoresponse, extracellular vesicles, and microRNAs, are discussed.

Increasing stroke events in patients with ST elevation myocardial infraction and cardiogenic shock: A cause for concern

The incidence of stroke in patients with STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is much higher than in those without CS. Use of percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS) is associated with a higher incidence of stroke in these patients; however, a causal relationship cannot be inferred. Careful attention should be given to stroke mitigation and management strategies in this cohort and judicious use of MCS is warranted. Future prospective clinical studies are needed to examine the impact of MCS on stroke incidence in these patients and further validate these clinically important findings.

Incidence and clinical outcomes of nosocomial infections in patients presenting with STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock in the United States

OBJECTIVES

This study addresses the incidence, trends, and impact of nosocomial infections (NI) on the outcomes of patients admitted with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS) using the United States National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 105,184 STEMI-CS patients using the NIS database from the years 2005-2014. NI was defined as infections of more than or equal to three days, comprising of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), urinary tract infection (UTI), hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), bacteremia, and skin related infections. Outcomes of the impact of NI on STEMI-CS included in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay (LOS) and costs. Significant associations of NI in patients admitted with STEMI-CS were also identified.

RESULTS

Overall, 19.1% (20,137) of patients admitted with STEMI-CS developed NI. Trends of NI have decreased from 2005-2014. The most common NI were UTI (9.2%), followed by HAP (6.8%), CLABSI (1.5%), bacteremia (1.5%), skin related infections (1.5%), and CDI (1.3%). The strongest association of developing a NI was increasing LOS (7-9 days; OR: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.75-2.26; >9 days; OR: 4.51; 95% CI: 4.04-5.04 compared to 4-6 days as reference). Increased mortality risk among patients with NI was significant, especially those with sepsis-associated NI compared to those without sepsis (OR: 2.95; 95% CI: 2.72-3.20). Patients with NI were found to be associated with significantly longer LOS and higher costs, irrespective of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support placement.

CONCLUSIONS

NI were common among patients with STEMI-CS. Those who developed NI were at a greater risk of in-hospital mortality, increased LOS and costs.

Complications from percutaneous-left ventricular assist devices versus intra-aortic balloon pump in acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on the complications with a percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD) vs. intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the trends, rates and predictors of complications.

METHODS

Using a 17-year AMI-CS population from the National Inpatient Sample, AMI-CS admissions receiving pLVAD and IABP support were evaluated for vascular, lower limb amputation, hematologic, neurologic and acute kidney injury (AKI) complications. In-hospital mortality, hospitalization costs and length of stay in pLVAD and IABP cohorts with complications was studied.

RESULTS

Of 168,645 admissions, 7,855 (4.7%) receiving pLVAD support. The pLVAD cohort had higher comorbidity, cardiac arrest (36.1% vs. 29.7%) and non-cardiac organ failure (74.7% vs. 56.9%) rates. Complications were higher in pLVAD compared to IABP cohort-overall 69.0% vs. 54.7%; vascular 3.8% vs. 2.1%; lower limb amputation 0.3% vs. 0.3%; hematologic 36.0% vs. 27.7%; neurologic 4.9% vs. 3.5% and AKI 55.4% vs. 39.1% (all p<0.001 except for amputation). Non-White race, higher comorbidity, organ failure, and extracorporeal membrane oxygen use were predictors of complications for both cohorts. The pLVAD cohort with complications had higher in-hospital mortality (45.5% vs. 33.1%; adjusted odds ratio 1.65 [95% confidence interval 1.55-1.75]), shorter duration of hospital stay, and higher hospitalization costs compared to the IABP cohort with complications (all p<0.001). These results were consistent in propensity-matched pairs.

CONCLUSIONS

AMI-CS admissions receiving pLVAD had higher rates of complications compared to the IABP, with worse in-hospital outcomes in the cohort with complications.

The science of safety: complications associated with the use of mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock and best practices to maximize safety

Acute mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are widely used in cardiogenic shock (CS) despite a lack of high-quality clinical evidence to guide their use. Multiple devices exist across a spectrum from modest to complete support, and each is associated with unique risks. In this review, we summarize existing data on complications associated with the three most widely used acute MCS platforms: the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella systems, and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). We review evidence from available randomized trials and highlight challenges comparing complication rates from case series and comparative observational studies where a lack of granular data precludes appropriate matching of patients by CS severity. We further offer a series of best practices to help shock practitioners minimize the risk of MCS-associated complications and ensure the best possible outcomes for patients.