Cardiogenic shock teams and centres: a contemporary review of multidisciplinary care for cardiogenic shock

The Price We Pay for Progression in Shock Care: Economic Burden, Accessibility, and Adoption of Shock-Teams and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with high in-hospital and long-term mortality and morbidity that results in significant socio-economic impact. Due to the high costs associated with CS care, it is important to define the short- and long-term burden of this disease state on resources and review strategies to mitigate these.

RECENT FINDINGS

In recent times, the focus on CS continues to be on improving short-term outcomes, but there has been increasing emphasis on the long-term morbidity. In this review we discuss the long-term outcomes of CS and the role of hospital-level and system-level disparities in perpetuating this. We discuss mitigation strategies including developing evidence-based protocols and systems of care, improvement in risk stratification and evaluation of futility of care, all of which address the economic burden of CS. CS continues to remain the pre-eminent challenge in acute cardiovascular care, and a combination of multi-pronged strategies are needed to improve outcomes in this population.

Haemodynamic effects of intra-aortic balloon pumps stratified by baseline pulmonary artery pulsatility index

AIMS

Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) devices are commonly used in patients with heart failure related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS), including those with out-of-proportion right ventricular (RV) dysfunction. Pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPi) is a haemodynamic surrogate for RV performance. We aimed to assess short-term haemodynamic changes in patients with HF-CS following IABP support stratified by baseline PAPi.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a single-centre study of 67 consecutive patients with HF-CS who underwent IABP placement between 2020 and 2022. The primary aim was haemodynamic changes of specific variables on pulmonary artery catheter monitoring over 72 h following IABP placement. Secondary aims were clinically significant changes in diuretic regimens, changes in inotropes or vasopressors at 72 h following IABP, along with clinical outcomes. Prior to IABP placement, 57% of the total cohort (median age 59 years [48, 69], 31% female) had Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Stage C HF-CS. Thirty-eight (56%) patients had a PAPi <2.0. Following 72 h of IABP support, the PAPi <2.0 group had an observed significant decrease in central venous pressure (CVP; 20 to 12 mmHg, P < 0.001) and mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP; 37.5 to 28.5 mmHg, P = 0.001), and an increase in PAPi (1 to 1.6, P = 0.001). No significant change in cardiac index (CI; 2 to 2.1 L/min/m2, P = 0.31) was observed. The PAPi ≥2.0 group (N = 29) had no observed significant change in CVP (10 to 8 mmHg, P = 0.47), or PAPi (2.6 to 2.8, P = 0.92), but there was a significant improvement in CI (1.9 to 2.5 L/min/m2, P = 0.004) along with reduction in mPA (37 to 29 mmHg, P = 0.03). The PAPi <2.0 group had a significant increase in diuretic requirement (52.6% vs. 20.7%, P = 0.01) and numerically greater addition of inotropes/vasopressors (47.3% vs. 34.4%, P = 0.07) compared with the PAPi ≥2.0 group at 72 h following IABP placement. Significantly more patients in the PAPi ≥2.0 group underwent left ventricular assist device (55.2% vs. 26.3%, P = 0.02), with no overall significant differences observed in escalation to veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, 30-day mortality, renal replacement therapy post-IABP, or rates of heart transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

IABP devices in those with HF-CS and low or abnormal PAPi may provide modest short-term haemodynamic benefits without significant improvement in CI, along with greater need for adjustment in medical therapeutics to achieve haemodynamic optimization.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Suffering Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) can stem from multiple causes and portends poor prognosis. Prior studies have focused on acute myocardial infarction-CS; however, acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF)-CS accounts for most cases. We studied patients suffering ADHF-CS to identify clinical factors, early in their trajectory, associated with a higher probability of successful outcomes.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with CS were evaluated (N=1162). We studied patients who developed ADHF-CS at our hospital (N=562). Primary end point was native heart survival (NHS), defined as survival to discharge without receiving advanced HF therapies. Secondary end points were adverse events, survival, major cardiac interventions, and hospital readmissions within 1 year following index hospitalization discharge. Association of clinical data with NHS was analyzed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Overall, 357 (63.5%) patients achieved NHS, 165 (29.2%) died, and 41 (7.3%) were discharged post advanced HF therapies. Of 398 discharged patients (70.8%), 303 (53.9%) were alive at 1 year. Patients with NHS less commonly suffered cardiac arrest, underwent intubation or pulmonary artery catheter placement, or received temporary mechanical circulatory support, had better hemodynamic and echocardiographic profiles, and had a lower vasoactive-inotropic score at shock onset. Bleeding, hemorrhagic stroke, hemolysis in patients with mechanical circulatory support, and acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy were less common compared with patients who died or received advanced HF therapies. After multivariable adjustments, clinical variables associated with NHS likelihood included younger age, history of systemic hypertension, absence of cardiac arrest or acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy, lower pulmonary capillary wedge pressure and vasoactive-inotropic score, and higher tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion at shock onset (all P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

By studying contemporary patients with ADHF-CS, we identified clinical factors that can inform clinical management and provide future research targets. Right ventricular function, renal function, pulmonary artery catheter placement, and type and timing of temporary mechanical circulatory support warrant further investigation to improve outcomes of this devastating condition.

Defining the Cross-Volume Effect of Extracorporeal Life Support on Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a leading cause of mortality despite advancements in mechanical circulatory support and other management strategies. In particular, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) requires expertise in cardiac surgery, cardiology, and critical care. The benefits of such expertise may extend beyond patients undergoing ECMO.

METHODS

Hospitalizations in adults (aged ≥18 years) with a primary diagnosis of CS who were not undergoing ECMO, cardiac operations, durable left ventricular assist device therapy, or heart transplantation were abstracted from the 2016-2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Multivariable regression models were developed to assess the association of cardiac surgical and ECMO institutional caseload with clinical and financial outcomes.

RESULTS

Of an estimated 70,339 patients with CS identified for study, 33,643 (47.8%) were treated at a high-volume hospital for ECMO (HVH-ECMO). HVH-ECMO was associated with decreased odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95), respiratory complications (aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.94), and nonhome discharge (aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.94). However, HVH-ECMO was associated with a longer length of stay by 1.7 days (95% CI, 1.3-2.1) and higher inpatient costs by $9170 (95% CI, $6,490-$12,060). Although ECMO volume was inversely associated with the predicted risk of in-hospital mortality, institutional volume of cardiac operations was not significantly associated with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest improved outcomes for patients with CS who were treated at an HVH-ECMO. Multidisciplinary care pathways, including those among surgery, cardiology, and critical care, may influence CS management. Further studies are needed to characterize long-term outcomes of regionalization and ensure equitable access for all populations.

Cardiogenic Shock Challenges and Priorities: A Clinician Survey

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is common and survival outcomes have not substantially improved. Australia's geography presents unique challenges in the management of CS. The challenges and research priorities for clinicians pertaining to CS identification and management have yet to be described.

METHOD

We used an exploratory sequential mixed methods design. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 clinicians (medical and nursing) to identify themes for quantitative evaluation. A total of 143 clinicians undertook quantitative evaluation through online survey. The interviews and surveys addressed current understanding of CS, status of cardiogenic systems and future research priorities.

RESULTS

There were 143 respondents: 16 (11%) emergency, cardiology 22 (16%), 37 (26%) intensive care, 54 (38%) nursing. In total, 107 (75%) believe CS is under-recognised. Thirteen (13; 9%) of respondents indicated their hospital had existing CS teams, all from metropolitan hospitals, and 40% thought additional access to mechanical circulatory support devices was required. Five (5; 11%) non-tertiary hospital respondents had not experienced a delay in transfer of a patient in CS. All respondents felt additional research, particularly into the management of CS, was required.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians report that CS is under-recognised and further research into CS management is required. Access to specialised CS services is still an issue and CS protocolised pathways may be of value.

Building a cardiogenic shock response team: key considerations necessary to improve outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides key information about cardiogenic shock (CS) teams, including published evidence and practical recommendations to create a CS team and program.

RECENT FINDINGS

CS is a complex disease process with a high in-hospital mortality rate ranging from 30% to 70% according to recent registries and randomized studies. The explanation for the elevated rates is likely multifactorial, including the various etiologies of cardiogenic shock as well as delays in recognition and deployment of appropriate therapies. Accordingly, the use of cardiogenic shock team has been implemented with the aim of improving outcomes in these patients. The CS team typically consists of members with critical care or cardiac critical care expertise, heart failure, cardiothoracic surgery, and interventional cardiology. A number of retrospective studies have now supported the benefits of a CS team, particularly in selecting the appropriate candidates for tailored mechanical circulatory support therapies and providing interventions in a timely manner, which have translated into improved outcomes.

SUMMARY

CS teams provides a platform for expedited recognition of CS and timely, standardized, and multidisciplinary discussions regarding appropriate management and care.

Transcatheter Structural Heart Interventions in the Acute Setting: An Emerging Indication

Structural heart disease is increasingly prevalent in the general population, especially in patients of increased age. Recent advances in transcatheter structural heart interventions have gained a significant following and are now considered a mainstay option for managing stable valvular disease. However, the concept of transcatheter interventions has also been tested in acute settings by several investigators, especially in cases where valvular disease comes as a result of acute ischemia or in the context of acute decompensated heart failure. Tested interventions include both the mitral and aortic valve, mostly evaluating mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair and transcatheter aortic valve implantation, respectively. This review is going to focus on the use of acute structural heart interventions in the emergent setting, and it will delineate the available data and provide a meaningful discussion on the optimal patient phenotype and future directions of the field.

Cardiogenic shock diagnosis and management in general intensive care: a nationwide survey

BACKGROUND

the epidemiology of cardiogenic shock has evolved over the years: in the last decades an increasing prevalence of cardiogenic shock related to acute decompensated heart failure was observed. Therefore, treatment bundles should be updated according to the underlying pathophysiology. No data exist regarding the diagnostic/therapeutic strategies in general intensive care units.

METHODS

A 27-questions survey was spread through the GiViTi (Italian Group for the Evaluation of Interventions in Intensive Care Medicine). The results were then divided according to level of hospitals (1st-2nd versus 3rd).

RESULTS

Sixty-nine general intensive care units replied to the survey. The shock team is present in 13% of institutions; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock classification is applied only in 18.8%. Among the ICUs, 94.2% routinely use a cardiac output monitoring device (pulmonary artery catheter more frequently in 3rd level centers). The first-line adrenergic drug are vasopressors in 27.5%, inotrope in 21.7% or their combination in 50.7%; 79.7% applies fluid challenge. The first vasopressor of choice is norepinephrine (95.7%) (maximum dosage tolerated higher than 0.5 mcg/kg/min in 29%); the first line inotrope is dobutamine (52.2%), followed by epinephrine in 36.2%. The most frequently used mechanical circulatory supports are intra-aortic balloon pump (71%), Impella (34.8%) and VA-ECMO (33.3%); VA-ECMO is the first line strategy in refractory cardiogenic shock (60.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

According to this survey, there is no standardized approach to cardiogenic shock amongst Italian general intensive care units. The application of shock severity stratification and the treatment bundles may play a key role in improving the outcome.

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

Background

Despite high rates of cardiovascular disease in Scotland, the prevalence and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock are unknown.

Methods

We undertook a prospective observational cohort study of consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) or coronary care unit at 13 hospitals in Scotland for a 6-month period. Denominator data from the Scottish Intensive Care Society Audit Group were used to estimate ICU prevalence; data for coronary care units were unavailable. We undertook multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with in-hospital mortality.

Results

In total, 247 patients with cardiogenic shock were included. After exclusion of coronary care unit admissions, this comprised 3.0% of all ICU admissions during the study period (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6%-3.5%). Aetiology was acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in 48%. The commonest vasoactive treatment was noradrenaline (56%) followed by adrenaline (46%) and dobutamine (40%). Mechanical circulatory support was used in 30%. Overall in-hospital mortality was 55%. After multivariable logistic regression, age (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06), admission lactate (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.19), Society for Cardiovascular Angiographic Intervention stage D or E at presentation (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.10-4.29) and use of adrenaline (OR 2.73, 95% CI 1.40-5.40) were associated with mortality.

Conclusions

In Scotland the prevalence of cardiogenic shock was 3% of all ICU admissions; more than half died prior to discharge. There was significant variation in treatment approaches, particularly with respect to vasoactive support strategy.

Cardiogenic shock as a health issue. Physiology, classification, and detection

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a heterogeneous syndrome with high mortality and a growing incidence. It is characterized by an imbalance between the tissue oxygen demands and the capacity of the cardiovascular system to meet these demands, due to acute cardiac dysfunction. Historically, acute coronary syndromes have been the primary cause of CS. However, non-ischemic cases have seen a rise in incidence. The pathophysiology involves ischemic damage of the myocardium and a sympathetic, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and inflammatory response, perpetuating the situation of tissue hypoperfusion and ultimately leading to multiorgan dysfunction. The characterization of CS patients through a triaxial assessment and the widespread use of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) scale has allowed standardization of the severity stratification of CS; this, coupled with early detection and the "hub and spoke" approach, could contribute to improving the prognosis of these patients.

The Intra-aortic Balloon Pump: A Focused Review of Physiology, Transport Logistics, Mechanics, and Complications

Critical care transport medicine (CCTM) teams are playing an increasing role in the care of patients in cardiogenic shock requiring mechanical circulatory support devices. Hence, it is important that CCTM providers are familiar with the pathophysiology of cardiogenic shock, the role of mechanical circulatory support, and the management of these devices in the transport environment. The intra-aortic balloon pump is a widely used and accessible cardiac support device capable of increasing cardiac output and reducing work on the left ventricle through diastolic augmentation and counterpulsation. This article reviews essential CCTM-based considerations for patients supported by intra-aortic balloon pump, including indications for placement, mechanics and physiology, potential issues during transport, and associated complications.

Evolution of Cardiogenic Shock Management and Development of a Multidisciplinary Team-Based Approach: Ten Years Experience of a Single Center

Background: The management of cardiogenic shock (CS) after ACS has evolved over time, and the development of a multidisciplinary team-based approach has been shown to improve outcomes, although mortality remains high. Methods: All consecutive patients with ACS-CS admitted at our CICU from March 2012 to July 2021 were included in this single-center retrospective study. In 2019, we established a "shock team" consisting of a cardiac intensivist, an interventional cardiologist, an anesthetist, and a cardiac surgeon. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results: We included 167 patients [males 67%; age 71 (61-80) years] with ischemic CS. The proportion of SCAI shock stages from A to E were 3.6%, 6.6%, 69.4%, 9.6%, and 10.8%, respectively, with a mean baseline serum lactate of 5.2 (3.1-8.8) mmol/L. Sixty-six percent of patients had severe LV dysfunction, and 76.1% needed ≥ 1 inotropic drug. Mechanical cardiac support (MCS) was pursued in 91.1% [65% IABP, 23% Impella CP, 4% VA-ECMO]. From March 2012 to July 2021, we observed a significative temporal trend in mortality reduction from 57% to 29% (OR = 0.90, p = 0.0015). Over time, CS management has changed, with a significant increase in Impella catheter use (p = 0.0005) and a greater use of dobutamine and levosimendan (p = 0.015 and p = 0.0001) as inotropic support. In-hospital mortality varied across SCAI shock stages, and the SCAI E profile was associated with a poor prognosis regardless of patient age (OR 28.50, p = 0.039). Conclusions: The temporal trend mortality reduction in CS patients is multifactorial, and it could be explained by the multidisciplinary care developed over the years.

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.

Association between intensive care unit nursing grade and mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock and its cost-effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Despite the high workload of cardiac intensive care unit (ICU), there is a paucity of evidence on the association between nurse workforce and mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of the ICU nursing grade on mortality and cost-effectiveness in CS.

METHODS

A nationwide analysis was performed using the K-NHIS database. Patients diagnosed with CS and admitted to the ICU at tertiary hospitals were enrolled. ICU nursing grade was defined according to the bed-to-nurse ratio: grade1 (bed-to-nurse ratio < 0.5), grade2 (0.5 ≤ bed-to-nurse ratio < 0.63), and grade3 (0.63 ≤ bed-to-nurse ratio < 0.77) or above. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Cost-effective analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

Of the 72,950 patients with CS, 27,216 (37.3%) were in ICU nursing grade 1, 29,710 (40.7%) in grade 2, and 16,024 (22.0%) in grade ≥ 3. The adjusted-OR for in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in patients with grade 2 (grade 1 vs. grade 2, 30.6% vs. 37.5%, adjusted-OR 1.14, 95% CI1.09-1.19) and grade ≥ 3 (40.6%) with an adjusted-OR of 1.29 (95% CI 1.23-1.36) than those with grade 1. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of grade1 compared with grade 2 and ≥ 3 was $25,047/year and $42,888/year for hospitalization and $5151/year and $5269/year for 1-year follow-up, suggesting that grade 1 was cost-effective. In subgroup analysis, the beneficial effects of the high-intensity nursing grade on mortality were more prominent in patients who received CPR or multiple vasopressors usage.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with CS, ICU grade 1 with a high-intensity nursing staff was associated with reduced mortality and more cost-effectiveness during hospitalization compared to grade 2 and grade ≥ 3, and its beneficial effects were more pronounced in subjects at high risk of CS.

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.

Clinical profile, management and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing transfer between centers in Spain

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to analyze the clinical profile, management, and prognosis of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS) requiring interhospital transfer, as well as the prognostic impact of structural variables of the treating centers in this setting.

METHODS

This study included patients with STEMI-CS treated at revascularization-capable centers from 2016 to 2020. The patients were divided into the following groups: group A: patients attended throughout their admission at hospitals with interventional cardiology without cardiac surgery; group B: patients treated at hospitals with interventional cardiology and cardiac surgery; and group C: patients transferred to centers with interventional cardiology and cardiac surgery. We analyzed the association between the volume of STEMI-CS cases treated, the availability of cardiac intensive care units (CICU), and heart transplant with hospital mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 4189 episodes were included: 1389 (33.2%) from group A, 2627 from group B (62.7%), and 173 from group C (4.1%). Transferred patients were younger, had a higher cardiovascular risk, and more commonly underwent revascularization, mechanical circulatory support, and heart transplant during hospitalization (P<.001). The crude mortality rate was lower in transferred patients (46.2% vs 60.3% in group A and 54.4% in group B, (P<.001)). Lower mortality was associated with a higher volume of care and CICU availability (OR, 0.75, P=.009; and 0.80, P=.047).

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of transfers in patients with STEMI-CS in our setting is low. Transferred patients were younger and underwent more invasive procedures. Mortality was lower among patients transferred to centers with a higher volume of STEMI-CS cases and CICU.

Consensus statements from the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus conference: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock

The last decade has brought tremendous interest in the problem of cardiogenic shock. However, the mortality rate of this syndrome approaches 50%, and other than prompt myocardial revascularization, there have been no treatments proven to improve the survival of these patients. The bulk of studies have been in patients with acute myocardial infarction, and there is little evidence to guide the clinician in those patients with heart failure cardiogenic shock (HF-CS). An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplant consensus conference was organized to better define, diagnose, and manage HF-CS. There were 54 participants (advanced heart failure and interventional cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, critical care cardiologists, intensivists, pharmacists, and allied health professionals) with vast clinical and published experience in CS, representing 42 centers worldwide. This consensus report summarizes the results of a premeeting survey answered by participants and the breakout sessions where predefined clinical issues were discussed to achieve consensus in the absence of robust data. Key issues discussed include systems for CS management, including the "hub-and-spoke" model vs a tier-based network, minimum levels of data to communicate when considering transfer, disciplines that should be involved in a "shock team," goals for mechanical circulatory support device selection, and optimal flow on such devices. Overall, the document provides expert consensus on some important issues facing practitioners managing HF-CS. It is hoped that this will clarify areas where consensus has been reached and stimulate future research and registries to provide insight regarding other crucial knowledge gaps.

Heart failure related cardiogenic shock: An ISHLT consensus conference content summary

In recent years, there have been significant advancements in the understanding, risk-stratification, and treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS). Despite improved pharmacologic and device-based therapies for CS, short-term mortality remains as high as 50%. Most recent efforts in research have focused on CS related to acute myocardial infarction, even though heart failure related CS (HF-CS) accounts for >50% of CS cases. There is a paucity of high-quality evidence to support standardized clinical practices in approach to HF-CS. In addition, there is an unmet need to identify disease-specific diagnostic and risk-stratification strategies upon admission, which might ultimately guide the choice of therapies, and thereby improve outcomes and optimize resource allocation. The heterogeneity in defining CS, patient phenotypes, treatment goals and therapies has resulted in difficulty comparing published reports and standardized treatment algorithms. An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) consensus conference was organized to better define, diagnose, and manage HF-CS. There were 54 participants (advanced heart failure and interventional cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, critical care cardiologists, intensivists, pharmacists, and allied health professionals), with vast clinical and published experience in CS, representing 42 centers worldwide. State-of-the-art HF-CS presentations occurred with subsequent breakout sessions planned in an attempt to reach consensus on various issues, including but not limited to models of CS care delivery, patient presentations in HF-CS, and strategies in HF-CS management. This consensus report summarizes the contemporary literature review on HF-CS presented in the first half of the conference (part 1), while the accompanying document (part 2) covers the breakout sessions where the previously agreed upon clinical issues were discussed with an aim to get to a consensus.

The History of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and the Development of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Anticoagulation

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) was first started for humans in early 1970s by Robert Bartlett. Since its inception, there have been numerous challenges with extracorporeal circulation, such as coagulation and platelet activation, followed by consumption of coagulation factors and platelets, and biocompatibility of tubing, pump, and oxygenator. Unfractionated heparin (heparin hereafter) has historically been the defacto anticoagulant until recently. Also, coagulation monitoring was mainly based on bedside activated clotting time and activated partial thromboplastin time. In the past 50 years, the technology of ECMO has advanced tremendously, and thus, the survival rate has improved significantly. The indication for ECMO has also expanded. Among these are clinical conditions such as postcardiopulmonary bypass, sepsis, ECMO cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and even severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Not surprisingly, the number of ECMO cases has increased according to the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry and prolonged ECMO support has become more prevalent. It is not uncommon for patients with COVID-19 to be on ECMO support for more than 1 year until recovery or lung transplant. With that being said, complications of bleeding, thrombosis, clot formation in the circuit, and intravascular hemolysis still remain and continue to be major challenges. Here, several clinical ECMO experts, including the "Father of ECMO"-Dr. Robert Bartlett, describe the history and advances of ECMO.

Association of socioeconomic status in the incidence, quality-of-care metrics, and outcomes for patients with cardiogenic shock in a pre-hospital setting

AIMS

The relationship between lower socioeconomic status (SES) and poor cardiovascular outcomes is well described; however, there exists a paucity of data exploring this association in cardiogenic shock (CS). This study aimed to investigate whether any disparities exist between SES and the incidence, quality of care or outcomes of CS patients attended by emergency medical services (EMS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

This population-based cohort study included consecutive patients transported by EMS with CS between 1 January 2015 and 30 June 2019 in Victoria, Australia. Data were collected from individually linked ambulance, hospital, and mortality datasets. Patients were stratified into SES quintiles using national census data produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.A total of 2628 patients were attended by EMS for CS. The age-standardized incidence of CS amongst all patients was 11.8 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 11.4-12.3] per 100 000 person-years, with a stepwise increase from the highest to lowest SES quintile (lowest quintile 17.0 vs. highest quintile 9.7 per 100 000 person-years, P-trend < 0.001). Patients in lower SES quintiles were less likely to attend metropolitan hospitals and more likely to be received by inner regional and remote centres without revascularization capabilities. A greater proportion of the lower SES groups presented with CS due to non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or unstable angina pectoris (UAP), and overall were less likely to undergo coronary angiography. Multivariable analysis demonstrated an increased 30-day all-cause mortality rate in the lowest three SES quintiles when compared with the highest quintile.

CONCLUSION

This population-based study demonstrated discrepancies between SES status in the incidence, care metrics, and mortality rates of patients presenting to EMS with CS. These findings outline the challenges in equitable healthcare delivery within this cohort.

The Successful Rotor Wing Transport of 2 Patients Requiring Biventricular Impella Support: A Case Series and Review

Despite many advances in care, the mortality rate for cardiogenic shock remains high. Because the medical management of patients with cardiogenic shock is limited, many patients often require mechanical circulatory support. As such, cardiogenic shock patients requiring percutaneous ventricular support devices such as the Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) may be encountered by critical care transport crews with increasing frequency. Recently, biventricular Impella support has been described as a mechanical support strategy for biventricular failure. This case series describes the successful rotor wing transport of 2 patients with severe cardiogenic shock requiring biventricular Impella support and presents a review of Impella RP (Abiomed) and biventricular Impella support devices for the critical care transport medicine clinician.

Protocolised Management of Cardiogenic Shock and Shock Teams: A Narrative Review

Despite advances in therapy, the incidence of cardiogenic shock continues to increase, with significant mortality that has improved minimally over time. Treatment options for cardiogenic shock are complex and time-, resource-, and case volume-dependent, and involve multiple medical specialties. To provide early, more equitable, and standardised access to cardiogenic shock expertise with advanced therapies, cardiogenic shock teams with a protocolised treatment approach have been proposed. These processes have been applied across hospitals into integrated cardiogenic shock networks. This narrative review evaluates the role of cardiogenic shock teams, protocolised and regionalised shock networks, and the main individual components of protocolised shock management approaches.

[Impact of a multidisciplinary team "ECMO Team" on the prognosis of patients undergoing veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest]

Objectives

Veno-arterial Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) is a salvage intervention in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), and cardiac arrest (CA) refractory to standard therapies. The design of ECMO Teams has achieved the standardization of processes, although its impact on survival and prognosis is unknown.

Objective

We aimed to analyze whether the creation of an ECMO Team has modified the prognosis of patients undergoing VA ECMO for refractory CS or CA.

Materials and methods

. We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study. Patients with refractory CS or CA who underwent VA ECMO were divided in two consecutive periods: from 2014 to April 2019 (pre-ECMO T) and from May 2019 to December 2022 (Post ECMO T). The main outcomes were survival on ECMO, in-hospital survival, complications, and annual ECMO volume.

Results

Eighty-three patients were included (36 pre-ECMO T and 47 post-ECMO T). The mean age was 53 +/-13 years. The most common reason for device indication was different: postcardiotomy shock (47.2%) pre-ECMO T and refractory cardiogenic shock (29.7%) post-ECMO T. The rate of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation was 14.5%. The median duration of VA ECMO was longer after ECMO team implementation: 8 days (IQR 5-12.5) vs. five days (IQR 2-9, p=0.04). Global in-hospital survival was 45.8% (38.9% pre-ECMO T vs. 51.1% post-ECMO T; p=0.37), and the survival rate from VA ECMO was 60.2% (55.6% pre-ECMO T vs 63.8% post-ECMO T; p= 0.50). The volume of VA ECMO implantation was significantly higher in the post-ECMO team period (13.2 +/3.5 per year vs. 6.5 +/-3.5 per year, p: 0.02). The rate of complications was similar in both groups.

Conclusions

After the implementation of an ECMO team, there was no statistical difference in the survival rate of patients treated with VA ECMO. However, a significant increase in the number of patients supported per year was observed after the implementation of this multidisciplinary team. Post-ECMO T, the most common reason for device indication was cardiogenic shock, with longer run times and a higher rate of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Trends and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock in Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease: Insights From USRDS Database

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data regarding epidemiology, temporal trends, and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) and end-stage renal disease (chronic kidney disease stage V on hemodialysis).

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study using the United States Renal Data System database from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2019. We analyzed trends of CS, percutaneous mechanical support (intraaortic balloon pump, percutaneous ventricular assist device [Impella and Tandemheart], and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) utilization, index mortality, 30-day mortality, and 1-year all-cause mortality in end-stage renal disease patients.

RESULTS

A total of 43 825 end-stage renal disease patients were hospitalized with CS (median age, 67.8 years [IQR, 59.4-75.8] and 59.1% men). From 2006 to 2019, the incidence of CS increased from 275 to 578 per 100 000 patients (Ptrend<0.001). The index mortality rate declined from 54.1% in 2006 to 40.8% in 2019 (Ptrend=0.44), and the 1-year all-cause mortality decreased from 63% in 2006 to 61.8% in 2018 (Ptrend=0.73), but neither trend was statistically significant. There was a significantly decreased utilization of intra-aortic balloon pumps from 17 832 to 7992 (Ptrend<0.001), increased utilization of percutaneous ventricular assist device from 137 to 5201 (Ptrend<0.001) and increase in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use from 69 to 904 per 100 000 patients (Ptrend<0.001). After adjusting for covariates, there was no significant difference in index mortality between CS patients requiring percutaneous mechanical support versus those not requiring percutaneous mechanical support (odds ratio, 0.97 [CI, 0.91-1.02]; P=0.22). On multivariable regression analysis, older age, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, and time on dialysis were independent predictors of higher index mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of CS in end-stage renal disease patients has doubled without significant change in the trend of index mortality despite the use of percutaneous mechanical support.

Prevention and management of critical care complications in cardiogenic shock: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in cardiac intensive care units (CICUs), even in the contemporary era.

MAIN TEXT

Although mechanical circulatory supports have recently become widely available and used in transforming the management of CS, their routine use to improve outcomes has not been established. Transportation to a high-volume center, early reperfusion, tailored mechanical circulatory supports, regionalized systems of care with multidisciplinary CS teams, a dedicated CICU, and a systemic approach, including preventing noncardiogenic complications, are the key components of CS treatment strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

This narrative review aimed to discuss the challenges of preventing patients from developing CS-related complications and provide a comprehensive practical approach for its management.

Relationship between the volume of cases and in-hospital mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock receiving short-term mechanical circulatory support

BACKGROUND

We examined the relationship between annual case volume at each hospital and outcome in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients receiving mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used the Japanese nationwide database to identify patients receiving short-term MCS for CS between April 2012 and March 2020. Of 65,837 patients, 3 subcohorts were created; the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) alone (n = 48,643), the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (n = 16,871), and the Impella cohorts (n = 696).

RESULTS

The median annual case volume was 13.5 (7.4-22.1) in the IABP alone cohort, 6.4 (3.4-11.0) in the ECMO cohort, and 7.5 (4.0-10.7) in the Impella cohort. The highest quintile for the volume of cases in the IABP alone and ECMO had the lowest in-hospital mortality (IABP alone, 25.1% in quintile 1 vs 15.2% in quintile 5; ECMO, 73.7% in quintile 1 in 67.4% in quintile 5). Adjusted ORs for in-hospital mortality decreased as case volume increased (IABP alone, 0.63 [0.58-0.68] in quintile 5; ECMO, 0.73 [0.65-0.82] in quintile 5, with the lowest quintile as reference) but did not decrease significantly in the Impella (0.90 [0.58-1.39] in tertile 3, with the lowest tertile as reference). In the continuous models with the case volume as a continuous variable, adjusted ORs for in-hospital mortality decreased to 28 IABP cases/year and 12 ECMO cases/year. They did not decrease or became almost flat above that.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher volumes of IABP and ECMO are associated with a lower mortality. There is an upper limit to the decline. Centralizing patients with refractory CS in a particular hospital might improve patient outcomes in each region.

Reperfusion Delays and Outcomes Among Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction With and Without Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Mortality remains high in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS), and early reperfusion has been shown to improve outcomes. We analyzed the association between first medical contact (FMC)-to-percutaneous coronary angiography time with mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events among patients with STEMI with and without CS.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority STEMI registry, including all patients with STEMI who received primary percutaneous coronary angiography between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2020, and stratified them by presence or absence of CS at hospital arrival. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, the secondary outcome was in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as a composite of the first occurrence of mortality, cardiac arrest, heart failure, intracerebral hemorrhage, cerebrovascular accident, or reinfarction. Mixed effects logistic regression with restricted cubic splines was used to estimate the relationships between FMC-to-device time and the outcomes in the CS and non-CS groups.

RESULTS

2929 patients were included, 9.4% (n=275) had CS. Median FMC-to-device time was 113.5 (interquartile range, 93.0-145.0) and 103.0 (interquartile range, 85.0-130.0) minutes for patients with CS and without CS, respectively. More patients with CS had FMC-to-device times above guideline recommendations (76.6% versus 54.1%, P<0.001). Between 60 and 90 minutes, for each 10-minute increase in FMC-to-device time, absolute mortality for patients with CS increased by 4% to 7%, whereas for patients without CS, it increased by <0.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary angiography, reperfusion delays among patients with CS are associated with significantly worse outcomes. Strategies to reduce FMC-to-device times for patients with STEMI presenting with CS are required.

Cardiogenic Shock Classification and Associated Mortality Risk

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Shock Classification was developed to create standardized language describing the severity of cardiogenic shock (CS). The purposes of this review were to evaluate short-term and long-term mortality rates at each SCAI shock stage for patients with or at risk for CS, which has not been studied previously, and to propose using the SCAI Shock Classification to develop algorithms for clinical status monitoring. A detailed literature search was conducted for articles published from 2019 through 2022 in which the SCAI shock stages were used to assess the mortality risk. In total, 30 articles were reviewed. The SCAI Shock Classification at hospital admission revealed a consistent and reproducible graded association between shock severity and mortality risk. Furthermore, shock severity correlated incrementally with mortality risk even after patients were stratified for diagnosis, treatment modalities, risk modifiers, shock phenotype, and underlying cause. The SCAI Shock Classification system can be used to evaluate mortality across populations of patients with or at risk for CS including those with different causes, shock phenotypes, and comorbid conditions. We propose an algorithm that uses clinical parameters incorporating the SCAI Shock Classification into the electronic health record to continually reassess and reclassify the presence and severity of CS across time throughout hospitalization. The algorithm has the potential to alert the care team and a CS team, leading to earlier recognition and stabilization of the patient, and may facilitate the use of treatment algorithms and prevent CS deterioration, leading to improved outcomes.

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.

Age as a predictor of clinical outcomes and determinant of therapeutic measures for emergency medical services treated cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUND

The impact of age on outcomes in cardiogenic shock (CS) is poorly described in the pre-hospital setting. We assessed the impact of age on outcomes of patients treated by emergency medical services (EMS).

METHODS

This population-based cohort study included consecutive adult patients with CS transported to hospital by EMS. Successfully linked patients were stratified into tertiles by age (18-63, 64-77, and > 77 years). Predictors of 30-day mortality were assessed through regression analyses. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 3523 patients with CS were successfully linked to state health records. The average age was 68 ± 16 years and 1398 (40%) were female. Older patients were more likely to have comorbidities including pre-existing coronary artery disease, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, and cerebrovascular disease. The incidence of CS was significantly greater with increasing age (incidence rate per 100,000 person years 6.47 [95% CI: 6.1-6.8] in age 18-63 years, 34.34 [32.4-36.4] in age 64-77 years, 74.87 [70.6-79.3] in age > 77 years, P < 0.001). There was a step-wise increase in the rate of 30-day mortality with increasing age tertile. After adjustment, compared to the lowest age tertile, patients aged > 77 years had increased risk of 30-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio = 2.26 [95% CI: 1.96-2.60]). Older patients were less likely to receive inpatient coronary angiography.

CONCLUSION

Older patients with EMS-treated CS have significantly higher rates of short-term mortality. The reduced rates of invasive interventions in older patients underscore the need for further development of systems of care to improve outcomes for this patient group.

Cardiogenic shock code 2023. Expert document for a multidisciplinary organization that allows quality care

Despite the efforts made to improve the care of cardiogenic shock (CS) patients, including the development of mechanical circulatory support (MCS), the prognosis of these patients continues to be poor. In this context, CS code initiatives arise, based on providing adequate, rapid, and quality care to these patients. In this multidisciplinary document we try to justify the need to implement the SC code, defining its structure/organization, activation criteria, patient flow according to care level, and quality indicators. Our specific purposes are: a) to present the peculiarities of this condition and the lessons of infarction code and previous experiences in CS; b) to detail the structure of the teams, their logistics and the bases for the management of these patients, the choice of the type of MCS, and the moment of its implantation, and c) to address challenges to SC code implementation, including the uniqueness of the pediatric SC code. There is an urgent need to develop protocolized, multidisciplinary, and centralized care in hospitals with a large volume and experience that will minimize inequity in access to the MCS and improve the survival of these patients. Only institutional and structural support from the different administrations will allow optimizing care for CS.

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.

Effect of sex on the association between arterial partial pressure of oxygen and in-hospital mortality in ICU patients with cardiogenic shock: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Maintaining tissue perfusion and oxygen supply are essential for cardiogenic shock (CS) treatment. Sex has been reported to be associated with mortality and oxygen use in patients with CS. Males and females respond differently to hypoxia. We designed this cohort study to evaluate the effects of sex on the association between the arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO₂) and in-hospital mortality.

Methods

We used the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC) IV database for this cohort study. The outcome was in-hospital mortality. The relationship between the PaO₂ and in-hospital mortality was compared with sex (via an interaction test) using multivariable Cox regression models. Presence of interaction between PaO₂ and sex was tested by using inter interaction terms.

Results

A total of 1,772 patients with CS were enrolled in this study. The association between PaO₂ and in-hospital mortality appeared to differ between males and females [hazard ratio (HR): 0.997, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.995-0.999 vs. HR: 1.002, 95% CI: 0.999-1.003, P for interaction =0.002]. We repeated the analyses, based on different PaO₂ category (PaO₂ <60 mmHg; PaO₂ 60-100 mmHg; PaO₂ >100 mmHg) and the results remained stable, P for interaction =0.008.

Conclusions

Sex affects the relationship between PaO₂ and in-hospital mortality in CS patients. Our findings may lead to the development of individualized therapies that focus on the use of different target oxygen partial pressures in different sexes to treat patients with CS.

How does protocolization improve outcomes in cardiogenic shock due to end-stage heart failure?

BACKGROUND

Protocolized team-based care has been shown to improve outcomes in cardiogenic shock (CS) in patients with end-stage heart failure (ESHF). This study tested the hypothesis that protocolized care improves survival by reducing multi-organ dysfunction prior to orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) or durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

METHODS

We developed a protocolized Recognize/rescue-Optimization-Stabilization-Exit/de-Escalation (ROSE) framework for CS due to ESHF. Six-month survival pre-ROSE (2014-2018) and post-ROSE (2018-2021) were compared. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was calculated as a measure of multi-organ dysfunction pre-MCS and pre-"Exit" therapy (OHT, LVAD or recovery).

RESULTS

101 consecutive patients with CS due to ESHF who were deteriorating on inotropes (INTERMACS 1 or 2) were included (63 in Pre-ROSE and 38 in Post-ROSE). The proportions of patients who died on support (26 (41%) vs 11 (29%), p = 0.213) or bridged to "Exit" therapy were comparable between Pre- and Post-ROSE: OHT (28 (44%) vs 21 (55%), p = 0.292); durable LVAD (8 (13%) vs 5 (13%), p = 0.947); or recovery (1 (2%) vs 1 (3%), p = 0.715). SOFA score prior to "Exit" therapy was higher Pre-ROSE compared to Post-ROSE (4 (2-7) vs 2 (1-5), p = 0.012). Six-month survival from initial MCS (71% vs 41%, p = 0.004) and in patients who underwent "Exit" therapy (100% vs 71%, p = 0.001) were higher Post-ROSE vs Pre-ROSE, respectively. Higher pre-"Exit" SOFA score was associated with 6-month survival. None of the patients with Pre-"Exit" SOFA score ≥ 9 survived at 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Protocolization of CS care in ESHF improved six-month survival by improving multi-organ dysfunction (SOFA score) prior to OHT and LVAD implant.

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.

HOSPITAL CHARACTERISTICS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH CARDIOGENIC SHOCK

ABSTRACT

Background: Regionalized systems of care for the management of cardiogenic shock (CS) are increasingly being utilized. This study aims to assess whether receiving hospital characteristics such as the availability of 24-hour coronary angiography, on-site cardiac surgery, and annual treated CS volume influence outcomes in patients transferred by emergency medical services (EMS) to hospital with CS. Methods: This population-based cohort study included consecutive adult patients with CS who were transferred to hospital by EMS between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2019 in Victoria, Australia. Data were obtained from individually linked ambulance, hospital, and state death index data sets. The primary outcome assessed was 30-day mortality stratified by the availability of 24-hour coronary angiography (cardiac center) at the receiving hospital. Results: A total of 3,217 patients were transferred to hospital with CS. The population had an average age of 67.9 +/- 16.1 years, and 1,289 (40.1%) were female. EMS transfer to a cardiac center was associated with significantly reduced rates of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.95), compared with noncardiac centers. Compared with the lowest annual CS volume quartile (<18 cases per year), hospitals in the highest volume quartile (>55 cases per year) had reduced risk of 30-day mortality (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.91). A stepwise reduction in the adjusted probability of 30-day mortality was observed in patients transferred by EMS to trauma level 1 centers (34.6%), compared with cardiothoracic surgical centers (39.0%), noncardiac surgical metropolitan (44.9%), and rural (51.3%) cardiac centers, all P < 0.05. Conclusion: Receiving hospital characteristics are associated with survival outcomes in patients with CS. These finding have important implications for establishing regionalized systems of care for patients with CS who are transferred to hospital by EMS.

[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.

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.

Staffing models in the cardiac intensive care unit

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The modern cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) has evolved into a high-intensity unit that cares for critically ill patients. Despite this transformation, changes to the staffing model and organizational structure in these specialized units have only recently begun to meet these challenges. We describe the most recent evidence which will inform future CICU staffing models.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the United States, the majority of CICUs are open as opposed to closed units, yet recent data suggests that transition to a closed staffing model is associated with a decrease in mortality. These reductions in mortality in closed CICUs are most pronounced in the most critically ill populations, such as patients with mechanical circulatory support, cardiac arrest, and respiratory failure. In addition, one study has shown that transition to a cardiac intensivist staffed CICU was associated with a reduction in mortality. Finally, multidisciplinary and protocolized teams imbedded within the CICU, specifically 'shock teams,' have recently been developed and may reduce mortality in this particularly sick patient population.

SUMMARY

Although the preponderance of data suggests improved outcomes with a closed, intensivist staffed CICU model, future multicenter studies are needed to better define the ideal staffing models for the contemporary CICU.

The shock team: a multidisciplinary approach to early patient phenotyping and appropriate care escalation in cardiogenic shock

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a highly morbid condition with mortality remaining greater than 30% despite improved pathophysiologic understanding and access to mechanical circulatory support (MCS). In response, shock teams modeled on successful multidisciplinary care structures for other diseases are being implemented nationwide.

RECENT FINDINGS

Primary data supporting a benefit of shock team implementation on patient outcomes are relatively limited and entirely observational. Four single-center before-and-after studies and one multicenter registry study have demonstrated improved outcomes in patients with CS, potentially driven by increased pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) utilization and earlier (and more appropriate) initiation of MCS. Shock teams are also supported by a growing body of literature recognizing the independent benefit of the interventions they seek to implement, including patient phenotyping with PAC use and an algorithmic approach to CS care. Though debated, MCS is also highly likely to improve CS outcomes when applied appropriately, which further supports a multidisciplinary shock team approach to patient and device selection.

SUMMARY

Shock teams likely improve patient outcomes by facilitating early patient phenotyping and appropriate intervention. Institutions should strongly consider adopting a multidisciplinary shock team approach to CS care, though additional data supporting these interventions are needed.

The clinical efficacy of integrated care in combination with vasopressin for cardiogenic shock induced by acute myocardial infarction: A randomized controlled study protocol

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is the most serious complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with high mortality, and the conventional nursing mode can not meet the clinical needs. Studies have shown that integrated care model has advantages for critical and chronic diseases. However, there is no clinical study to evaluate the clinical efficacy of this nursing model on cardiogenic shock induced by acute myocardial infarction (CS-AMI).

METHODS

This is a prospective randomized controlled trial to study the clinical efficacy of integrated care combined with vasopressin in the treatment of CS-AMI. Participants will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive integrated care combined with vasopressin in the treatment group and conventional care combined with vasopressin in the control group. The patients will be followed up for 3 months after systematic treatment. Observation indicators include: length of hospital stay, quality of life score, blood pressure level, and nursing satisfaction score. Finally, SPASS 20.0 software will be used for statistical analysis of the data.

DISCUSSION

This study will evaluate the clinical efficacy of integrated nursing combined with vasopressin in the treatment of CS-AMI. The results of this study will provide a reference for selecting appropriate nursing programs for CS-AMI patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

OSF Registration number: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/K8CN4.

Cardiogenic shock treated with temporary mechanical circulatory support in Brazil: The effect of learning curve

AIMS

Treatment with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has been proposed to mitigate mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS). However, there is a lack of data on MCS programs implementation and the effect of the learning curve on its outcomes in limited resources countries such as Brazil.

METHODS

Prospective cohort of patients with CS admitted in four tertiary-care centers treated with Impella CP or veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). Clinical outcomes were peri-procedural complications, short-term mortality rate, and the centers' learning curve. The cohort was divided into two periods: from April 2017 to July 2018 (n = 24), and from August 2018 to December 2020 (n = 25).

RESULTS

The study enrolled 49 patients [age 59 (43-63) years; 34 (70%) males]. The most common causes for CS were acute myocardial infarction in 22 (45%) and acute decompensation of chronic heart failure in 10 (20%). VA-ECMO was employed in 35 (71%) and Impella CP in 14 (29%) of patients. Overall complications occurred in 37 (76%) of patients, where major bleeding in 19 (38%) was the most common. The overall mortality rate was 61%, but it was lower in the second period (40%) in comparison to the first period (83%), p = 0.002. The learning curve analysis showed a decrease in the mortality rate after 40 consecutive cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a temporary MCS program for refractory CS in a limited resource country is feasible. The learning curve effect might have played a role on survival rate since high morbimortality has decreased within time reaching optimal results by the end of the study.