Contemporary reperfusion therapy for cardiogenic shock: the GUSTO-I trial experience. The GUSTO-I Investigators. Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries

Management of cardiogenic shock: a narrative review

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is characterized by low cardiac output and sustained tissue hypoperfusion that may result in end-organ dysfunction and death. CS is associated with high short-term mortality, and its management remains challenging despite recent advances in therapeutic options. Timely diagnosis and multidisciplinary team-based management have demonstrated favourable effects on outcomes. We aimed to review evidence-based practices for managing patients with ischemic and non-ischemic CS, detailing the multi-organ supports needed in this critically ill patient population.

Machine learning prediction of mortality in Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) is the leading cause of death in Portugal and globally. The present investigation created a model based on machine learning for predictive analysis of mortality in patients with AMI upon admission, using different variables to analyse their impact on predictive models.

METHODS

Three experiments were built for mortality in AMI in a Portuguese hospital between 2013 and 2015 using various machine learning techniques. The three experiments differed in the number and type of variables used. We used a discharged patients' episodes database, including administrative data, laboratory data, and cardiac and physiologic test results, whose primary diagnosis was AMI.

RESULTS

Results show that for Experiment 1, Stochastic Gradient Descent was more suitable than the other classification models, with a classification accuracy of 80%, a recall of 77%, and a discriminatory capacity with an AUC of 79%. Adding new variables to the models increased AUC in Experiment 2 to 81% for the Support Vector Machine method. In Experiment 3, we obtained an AUC, in Stochastic Gradient Descent, of 88% and a recall of 80%. These results were obtained when applying feature selection and the SMOTE technique to overcome imbalanced data.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that the introduction of new variables, namely laboratory data, impacts the performance of the methods, reinforcing the premise that no single approach is adapted to all situations regarding AMI mortality prediction. Instead, they must be selected, considering the context and the information available. Integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning with clinical decision-making can transform care, making clinical practice more efficient, faster, personalised, and effective. AI emerges as an alternative to traditional models since it has the potential to explore large amounts of information automatically and systematically.

The Battle against Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition characterized by hypoperfusion and hypoxia caused by low cardiac output [...].

Prognosis of patients with cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction: The difference between ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock has high mortality and remains challenging even in the revascularization era. We conducted this study to understand patients' outcomes. We retrospectively analyzed electronic medical records data from 1175 patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock that developed within 3 days of admission to a multicenter medical care system between January 1, 2000, and July 31, 2018. Patients with AMI were classified into the ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) group or the non-ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI) group. The short-term and 1-year mortality and adverse events after index admission were analyzed via logistic regression and a Cox proportional hazards model. When compared with NSTEMI, patients with STEMI tended to be younger (65.68 ± 14.05 years vs 70.70 ± 12.99 years, P < .001), men (73.29% vs 60.87%, P < .001), and have fewer underlying chronic diseases. Short-term mortality at index hospitalization was 14.83% in the STEMI group and 21.30% in the NSTEMI group; long-term mortality was 17.06% for the STEMI group and 24.13% for the NSTEMI group. No difference was observed between the 2 groups for patients who developed a cerebral vascular accident during the admission period. However, the major and gastrointestinal bleeding rates were higher in the STEMI group (2.66% vs 0.22%, P = .014; 3.36% vs 0.22%, P = .007, respectively). Age and respiratory failure were the most significant risk factors for short-term mortality. Revascularization may be beneficial for the short-term outcome but did not reach significance in multivariable analysis. In patients with AMI with cardiogenic shock, NSTEMI was associated with a significantly higher mortality rate in short-term results.

Early Prediction of Cardiogenic Shock Using Machine Learning

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a severe condition with in-hospital mortality of up to 50%. Patients who develop CS may have previous cardiac history, but that may not always be the case, adding to the challenges in optimally identifying and managing these patients. Patients may present to a medical facility with CS or develop CS while in the emergency department (ED), in a general inpatient ward (WARD) or in the critical care unit (CC). While different clinical pathways for management exist once CS is recognized, there are challenges in identifying the patients in a timely manner, in all settings, in a timeframe that will allow proper management. We therefore developed and evaluated retrospectively a machine learning model based on the XGBoost (XGB) algorithm which runs automatically on patient data from the electronic health record (EHR). The algorithm was trained on 8 years of de-identified data (from 2010 to 2017) collected from a large regional healthcare system. The input variables include demographics, vital signs, laboratory values, some orders, and specific pre-existing diagnoses. The model was designed to make predictions 2 h prior to the need of first CS intervention (inotrope, vasopressor, or mechanical circulatory support). The algorithm achieves an overall area under curve (AUC) of 0.87 (0.81 in CC, 0.84 in ED, 0.97 in WARD), which is considered useful for clinical use. The algorithm can be refined based on specific elements defining patient subpopulations, for example presence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or congestive heart failure (CHF), further increasing its precision when a patient has these conditions. The top-contributing risk factors learned by the model are consistent with existing clinical findings. Our conclusion is that a useful machine learning model can be used to predict the development of CS. This manuscript describes the main steps of the development process and our results.

A Comprehensive Appraisal of Risk Prediction Models for Cardiogenic Shock

ABSTRACT

Despite advances in early revascularization, percutaneous hemodynamic support platforms, and systems of care, cardiogenic shock (CS) remains associated with a mortality rate higher than 50%. Several risk stratification models have been derived since the 1990 s to identify patients at high risk of adverse outcomes. Still, limited information is available on the differences between scoring systems and their relative applicability to both acute myocardial infarction and advanced decompensated heart failure CS. Thus, we reviewed the similarities, differences, and limitations of published CS risk prediction models and herein discuss their suitability to the contemporary management of CS care.

Successful use of intravenous B-blocker therapy in cardiogenic shock supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A case series

Tachycardia in cardiogenic shock (CS) might reduce the cardiac output (CO) by decreasing the ventricular filling time. Nevertheless, heart rate (HR) control with agents that possess negative inotropy might decrease the CO. Therefore, controlling the tachycardia in the setting of CS remains controversial. We herein describe four cases of patients presenting with myocardial infarction complicated with CS that required rescue venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) initiation. Tachycardia was present with HR ∼130-140 beats per minute after VA-ECMO initiation, and hence esmolol was infused continuously at a starting dose of 10-20 mcg/kg/min and titrated according to HR. With the use of esmolol to control the HR in the setting of CS supported with VA-ECMO, lactate cleared, and echocardiographic parameters improved, allowing the four cases to be successfully decannulated from ECMO. Our report indicates that short-acting beta-blocker could be safely used in the complex scenario of severe tachycardia while supported with VA-ECMO.

Unrecognized concomitant ventricular septal rupture and left ventricular aneurysm 10 months after myocardial infarction in a patient presenting with chronic heart failure

BACKGROUND

We report a rare case of concomitant inferior left ventricular aneurysm and ventricular septal rupture in a patient presenting with chronic heart failure.

CASE PRESENTATION

An 81-year-old man suffered from congestive heart failure. His symptoms were alleviated by medical management; however, heart failure symptoms continued according to the New York Heart Association Functional Classification III. Ten months after presentation, ventricular septal rupture was diagnosed using echocardiography. The left ventricular aneurysm was also complicated. Surgical repair of the ventricular septal rupture and left ventricular aneurysm was successfully performed. The ventricular septal rupture consisted of multiple holes, and the infarcted myocardium had already progressed to firm, fibrotic scar tissue. We closed the ventricular septal rupture with a small bovine pericardial patch and performed an aneurysmectomy with a liner technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Cases of ventricular septal rupture can have various clinical scenarios, and treatment should be optimized for each patient, especially with respect to the timing of surgery.

Overview of Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VA-ECMO) Support for the Management of Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock accounts for ~100,000 annual hospital admissions in the United States. Despite improvements in medical management strategies, in-hospital mortality remains unacceptably high. Multiple mechanical circulatory support devices have been developed with the aim to provide hemodynamic support and to improve outcomes in this population. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is the most advanced temporary life support system that is unique in that it provides immediate and complete hemodynamic support as well as concomitant gas exchange. In this review, we discuss the fundamental concepts and hemodynamic aspects of VA-ECMO support in patients with cardiogenic shock of various etiologies. In addition, we review the common indications, contraindications and complications associated with VA-ECMO use.

Fibrinolytic Therapy in Patients with Acute ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction

Fibrinolytic agents provide an important alternative therapeutic strategy in individuals presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Ultimately, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy for most patients with STEMI, including elderly patients and patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Fibrinolytic therapy should always be considered when timely primary PCI cannot be delivered appropriately. Clinicians should promptly recognize the signs of fibrinolytic therapy failure and consider rescue PCI. When fibrinolytics are used, coronary angiography and revascularization should not be conducted within the initial 3 hours after fibrinolytic administration.

Management of ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) in Different Settings

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is a life-threatening condition that requires emergent, complex, well-coordinated treatment. Although the primary goal of treatment is simple to describe-reperfusion as quickly as possible-the management process is complicated and is affected by multiple factors including location, patient, and practitioner characteristics. Hence, this narrative review will discuss the recommended management and treatment strategies of STEMI in the circumstances.

Fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock

AIMS

There are limited contemporary data on the use of initial fibrinolysis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS). This study sought to compare the outcomes of STEMI-CS receiving initial fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).

METHODS

Using the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample from 2009 to 2017, a comparative effectiveness study of adult (>18 years) STEMI-CS admissions receiving pre-hospital/in-hospital fibrinolysis were compared with those receiving PPCI. Admissions with alternate indications for fibrinolysis and STEMI-CS managed medically or with surgical revascularization (without fibrinolysis) were excluded. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, development of non-cardiac organ failure, complications, hospital length of stay, hospitalization costs, use of palliative care, and do-not-resuscitate status.

RESULTS

During 2009-2017, 5297 and 110 452 admissions received initial fibrinolysis and PPCI, respectively. Compared with those receiving PPCI, the fibrinolysis group was more often non-White, with lower co-morbidity, and admitted on weekends and to small rural hospitals (all P < 0.001). In the fibrinolysis group, 95.3%, 77.4%, and 15.7% received angiography, PCI, and coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively. The fibrinolysis group had higher rates of haemorrhagic complications (13.5% vs. 9.9%; P < 0.001). The fibrinolysis group had comparable all-cause in-hospital mortality [logistic regression analysis: 28.8% vs. 28.5%; propensity-matched analysis: 30.8% vs. 30.3%; adjusted odds ratio 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.90-1.05); P = 0.50]. The fibrinolysis group had comparable rates of acute organ failure, hospital length of stay, rates of palliative care referrals, do-not-resuscitate status use, and lesser hospitalization costs.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of initial fibrinolysis had comparable in-hospital mortality than those receiving PPCI in STEMI-CS in the contemporary era in this large national observational study.

Outcomes after readmission at the index or nonindex hospital following acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

Little is known about the prevalence and outcomes of readmission to nonindex hospitals after an admission for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI‐CS). We aimed to determine the rate of nonindex readmissions following AMI‐CS and to evaluate its association with clinical factors, hospitalization cost, length of stay (LOS), and in‐hospital mortality rates.

Hypothesis

Nonindex readmission may lead to worse in‐hospital outcomes.

Methods

We reviewed the data of inpatients with AMI‐CS between 2010 and 2017 using the National Readmission Database. The survey analytical methods recommended by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project were used for national estimates. Multiple regression models were used to evaluate the predictors of nonindex readmission, and its association with hospitalization cost, LOS, and in‐hospital mortality rates.

Results

Of 238 349 patients with AMI‐CS, 28028 (11.76%) had an unplanned readmission within 30 days. Of these patients, 7423 (26.48%) were readmitted to nonindex hospitals. Compared with index readmission, nonindex readmission was associated with higher hospitalization costs (p < .0001), longer LOS (p < .0001), and increased in‐hospital mortality rates (p = .0016). Patients who had a history of percutaneous coronary intervention, received intubation/mechanical ventilation, or left against medical advice during the initial admission had greater odds of a nonindex readmission.

Conclusions

Over one‐fourth of readmissions following AMI‐CS were to nonindex hospitals. These admissions were associated with higher hospitalization costs, longer LOS, and higher in‐hospital mortality rates. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether a continuity of care plan in the acute hospital setting can improve outcomes after AMI‐CS.

Inotropic Agents and Vasopressors in the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, cardiogenic shock (CS) is the leading cause of death in patients admitted with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). CS is characterised by reduced cardiac output secondary to systolic dysfunction which can lead to multi-organ failure. The mainstay of medical treatment in CS are inotropes and vasopressors to improve cardiac output. However, current clinical guidelines do not direct clinicians as to which agents to use and in what combinations. This article aims to review the current evidence on the management of CS with a major focus on the use of inotropes and vasopressors.

METHOD

A literature review was conducted analysing published literature from the following databases: PubMed, MedLine, Cochrane Library and Embase, as well as a manual search of articles that were deemed relevant. Relevant articles were identified by using keywords such as "cardiogenic shock".

RESULTS

Literature was assessed to review the use of inotropes and vasopressors in CS. Dopamine and adrenaline were associated with increased mortality and arrhythmias. Dobutamine was associated with an improvement in cardiac output, at the determinant of causing arrhythmias. Conversely, noradrenaline was associated with a lower likelihood of arrhythmias and most importantly decreased mortality in CS. Compared to other inotropes, levosimendan appears to have a better safety profile and is associated with decreased mortality in CS, particularly when combined with a vasopressor. Our literature review suggests that treatment combination of the inotrope levosimendan with the vasopressor noradrenaline may be the most effective management option in CS.

ST-elevation myocardial infarction in nonagenarians: A nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To assess ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) trends and outcomes in nonagenarians undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) compared to medical management.

BACKGROUND

Although nonagenarians (age greater than 90 years) represent the fast-growing age decade of the US population, limited evidence is available regarding trends and outcomes of treatment strategies for STEMI in this population cohort.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database to identify nonagenarians presenting with STEMI and treated with either pPCI or medical management. In-hospital mortality, in-hospital complications, length of stay and in-hospital costs were analyzed.

RESULTS

Between 2010-2017, 41,042 STEMI hospitalizations were identified in nonagenarians, of which 11, 155 (27.2%) included pPCI whereas 29, 887 (72.8%) included medical management. STEMI hospitalizations among nonagenarians decreased over the study period. Overall unadjusted in-hospital mortality was 21.6%, and the hospitalizations that included pPCI had significantly lower mortality compared to the medical management (13.6% vs. 24.5%, p < .001). After adjusting for baseline characteristics, hospitalizations that included pPCI had 42.1% lower odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.67, p < .001). Altogether, in-hospital cardiac, bleeding and vascular complications, length of stay and in-hospital costs were higher in pPCI hospitalizations.

CONCLUSION

In nonagenarians, STEMI mortality is high, but pPCI is associated with superior outcomes compared to medical management alone. Therefore, pPCI can be considered an acceptable treatment strategy in this population.

Current indication and practical management of percutaneous left ventricular assist device support therapy in Japan

Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) is a recently-innovated (commercially available from 2017 in Japan) percutaneous left ventricular assist device which is inserted percutaneously and transfers blood from the left ventricle to the ascending aorta, improving systemic circulation and end-organ dysfunction as well as unloading left ventricle in patients with cardiogenic shock. Impella has not yet shown a significant survival benefit in patients with cardiogenic shock compared to intra-aortic balloon pump in randomized control trials, but gives powerful circulatory support immediately with minimally invasive manner when used in appropriate patients at optimal timing with adequate management. In this review article, we will introduce and discuss optimal and practical management of Impella therapy in Japan.

[Cardiogenic shock in patients with acute coronary syndrome (data from Russian Federal Acute Coronary Syndrome Registry)]

Mortality in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and its complications remains high, despite significant advances in the treatment of coronary heart disease and its complications. One of the most life - threatening complications of ACS is cardiogenic shock (CS). CS is an extreme degree of acute heart failure and develops on average in 5-8% of patients hospitalized with ACS. In the present work, we analyzed data from Russian Federal ACS Registry - frequency of CS occurrence, treatment methods, and outcomes of ACS complicated by CS.

AIM

Assess the quality of medical care in patients with ACS, which complicated by CS, and its compliance with current clinical guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from patients with ACS were exported from the Russian Federal ACS Registry. The study analyzed the data of 29.736 patients with ACS entered into the registry system in the period from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018. Of the 29.736 patients with ACS, 824 patients were diagnosed with CS. To assess the quality of care provided to patients with ACS and CS, the main clinical gguidelines were used.

RESULTS

The group of 824 patients with ACS and CS was analyzed. Among them patients with ACS with ST segment elevation prevailed - 77.8% (n=641). According to Russian Federal ACS Registry 44.3% (n=365) of patients with ACS and CS received conservative treatment, of which 58.6% (n=108) were with ACS with ST segment elevation. Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 39% (n=321) of patients, of whom 89.4% (n=271) of patients with ACS with ST segment elevation. According to the data of this study, thrombolytic therapy was performed in 26.5% (n=218) of patients.

CONCLUSION

The data obtained demonstrated that patients with ACS and CS did not receive optimal medical care and their treatment does not fully comply with modern clinical guidelines.

Clinical characteristics and outcome in patients with a delayed presentation after ST-elevation myocardial infarction and complicated by cardiogenic shock

OBJECTIVE

Delayed presentation after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS-STEMI) is commonly encountered in developing countries and is a challenging scenario because of a delay in revascularization resulting in infarction of a large amount of the myocardium. We aimed to assess the clinical characteristics, angiographic profile, and predictors of outcome in patients with a delayed presentation after CS-STEMI.

METHODS

A total of 147 patients with CS-STEMI with time to appropriate medical care ≥12 h after symptom onset were prospectively recruited at a tertiary referral center.

RESULTS

The median time to appropriate care was 24 h (interquartile range 18-48 h). The mean age was 58.7 ± 11.1 years. Left ventricular pump failure was the leading cause of shock (67.3%), whereas mechanical complications accounted for 14.9% and right ventricular infarction for 13.6% of cases. The overall in-hospital mortality was 42.9%. Acute kidney injury [Odds ratio (OR) 8.04; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 3.08-20.92], ventricular tachycardia (OR 7.04; CI 2.09-23.63), mechanical complications (OR 6.46; CI 1.80-23.13), and anterior infarction (OR 3.18; CI 1.01-9.97) were independently associated with an increased risk of mortality. Coronary angiogram (56.5%) revealed single-vessel disease (45.8%) as the most common finding. Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 53 patients (36%), at a median of 36 h (interquartile range 30-72) after symptom onset.

CONCLUSION

Patients with a delayed presentation after CS-STEMI were younger and more likely to have single-vessel disease. We found a high in-hospital mortality of 42.9%. Appropriate randomized studies are required to evaluate the optimal treatment strategies in these patients.

Ventricular septal rupture presented with chronic heart failure symptoms: a case report

BACKGROUND

Ventricular septal rupture (VSR) is a rare mechanical complication following acute myocardial infarction, with very high mortality rate. Haemodynamic deterioration and cardiogenic shock is common in such cases. Rarely, however, patients may show only signs of chronic heart failure or be completely asymptomatic.

CASE SUMMARY

We report a case of a 72-year-old male patient with VSR following a transmural myocardial infarction. He sought medical attention only after gradually experiencing symptoms of chronic heart failure, weeks after the onset of the myocardial infarction. The patient successfully underwent elective repair surgery, after optimizing the medical therapy and completing the necessary workup.

DISCUSSION

Ventricular septal rupture repair is necessary in all cases due to the high mortality rate if left untreated. The timing of the operation, however, should be decided individually for every patient. Haemodynamically unstable patients may require early surgery, but in stable patients responding to medical treatment, delayed repair may be the best option.

Non-arrhythmic causes of sudden death: A comprehensive review

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a major public health issue in the United States and worldwide. It is estimated to affect between 1 and 1.5 million patients worldwide annually, with the global burden expected to rise due to the concomitant rise in coronary artery disease in the developing world. Although arrhythmic causes of SCD such as ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation are common and well-studied, non-arrhythmic causes are also important, with diverse etiologies from ischemia-related structural heart disease to non-ischemic heart diseases, non-atherosclerotic coronary pathologies, and inflammatory states. Recent research has also found that risk factors and/or demographics predispose certain individuals to a higher risk of non-arrhythmia-related SCD. This review discusses the epidemiology, mechanisms, etiologies, and management of non-arrhythmic SCD.

Shock - Classification and Pathophysiological Principles of Therapeutics

The management of patients with shock is extremely challenging because of the myriad of possible clinical presentations in cardiogenic shock, septic shock and hypovolemic shock and the limitations of contemporary therapeutic options. The treatment of shock includes the administration of endogenous catecholamines (epinephrine, norepinephrine, and dopamine) as well as various vasopressor agents that have shown efficacy in the treatment of the various types of shock. In addition to the endogenous catecholamines, dobutamine, isoproterenol, phenylephrine, and milrinone have served as the mainstays of shock therapy for several decades. Recently, experimental studies have suggested that newer agents such as vasopressin, selepressin, calcium-sensitizing agents like levosimendan, cardiac-specific myosin activators like omecamtiv mecarbil (OM), istaroxime, and natriuretic peptides like nesiritide can enhance shock therapy, especially when shock presents a more complex clinical picture than normal. However, their ability to improve clinical outcomes remains to be proven. It is the purpose of this review to describe the mechanism of action, dosage requirements, advantages and disadvantages, and specific indications and contraindications for the use of each of these catecholamines and vasopressors, as well as to elucidate the most important clinical trials that serve as the basis of contemporary shock therapy.

Management of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: A review

Despite advances in percutaneous coronary interventions and their widespread use, mortality in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) has remained very high, and treatment options are limited. Limited evidences exist, supporting many of the routinely used therapies in treating these patients. In the present article, we discuss CS complicating MI in general and an update on the currently available treatment options, including inotropes and vasopressor, coronary revascularization, mechanical circulatory support devices, mechanical complications, and long‐term outcomes.

[Therapy of cardiogenic shock : A success story of German cardiology]

In contrast to the situation in the 1960s and 1970s, the mortality risk for patients with myocardial infarction has been clearly reduced, particularly for those with myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (MICS). Approximately 5‑10 % of patients with a myocardial infarction are affected by a MICS and the mortality risk is between 30 % and 50 %. The primary percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation should be carried out as quickly as possible in order to reduce the mortality to around 20 %. This article gives an overview of the currently available options for conservative and fibrinolytic treatment of MICS, of the interventional treatment of cardiogenic shock in the era of intravenous and intracoronary infarct treatment as well as without thrombolysis. In addition, the currently available mechanical support systems and the possibilities for surveillance and monitoring of patients are presented.

Culprit Vessel Only Versus Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Myocardial Infarction with Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies comparing outcomes between culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention (CV-PCI) versus multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) in patients with cardiogenic shock in the setting of acute myocardial infarction have shown conflicting results. This meta-analysis investigates the optimal approach for management of these patients considering recently published data.

METHODS

Electronic databases including MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library were searched for all clinical studies published until May 1, 2018, which compared outcomes in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. Studies comparing CV-PCI versus MV-PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were screened for inclusion in final analysis. The primary end point was in-hospital/30 day mortality. Secondary endpoints included long term (>6 months) mortality, renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy, stroke, bleeding, and recurrent myocardial infarction. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% of confidence interval (CI) were computed and p values <0.05 were considered significant.

RESULTS

Patient who underwent CV-PCI had significantly lower short-term mortality (in-hospital or 30-day mortality) (OR: 0.73, CI: 0.61-0.87, p = 0.0005), and lower odds of severe renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy (OR: 0.76, CI: 0.59-0.98, p = 0.03). There was no statistically significant difference in long-term mortality, stroke, bleeding, and recurrent myocardial infarction between two groups.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed lower short-term mortality and decreased odds of renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy with CV-PCI compared to MV-PCI. However, subgroup analysis including studies exclusively assessing STEMI patients revealed no statistically significant difference in outcomes. Further randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings and evaluate long term results.

Dependent layering of venous refluxed contrast: A sign of critically low cardiac output

Mortality associated with cardiogenic shock can reach 80%. Although most often diagnosed clinically, the hemodynamics of cardiogenic shock may manifest on contrast-enhanced computed tomography as dependent layering of contrast within the inferior vena cava (IVC), a finding referred to as the “IVC level sign.” Herein we present 2 cases of the IVC level sign. Swift recognition of the IVC level sign and awareness of its dire prognostic implications is essential for achieving the best patient outcomes.

In-hospital mortality of patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction; impact of early revascularization

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency of in-hospital mortality in 351 patients who developed cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction and by determining this; we might find that how efficiently we could manage this serious condition in our population by knowing the factors which are associated with high mortality after cardiogenic shock. Moreover impact of early revascularization like thrombolytic therapy or angioplasty was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Mean age was 65.41 ± 7.78 years in our study. In-hospital mortality with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction was found to be 44.73%. Significant association of in-hospital mortality was noted with age, hypertension, diabetes mellitus and BMI. Patients receiving early revascularization were noted to have lower in-hospital mortality compared to those in whom revascularization was not done due to delayed presentation. This study concluded that there is a high frequency (44.73%) of in-hospital mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial in our population. So, we recommend that for achieving a good outcome and to reduce in-hospital mortality; in addition to rapid diagnosis of this condition, underlying risk factors like hypertension and diabetes should be evaluated and managed accordingly and early revascularization should be done when possible.

[Infarct-related cardiogenic shock : Prognosis and treatment]

Patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) experience cardiogenic shock in about 6-10% of cases during the hospital treatment. In recent years, the incidence seems to be decreasing due to invasive diagnostics and therapy after myocardial infarction. Early diagnosis is important to initiate immediate revascularization using percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation as part of cardiogenic shock treatment. Thus, a significant improvement in survival can be achieved. Pharmacological and mechanical support is needed to maintain perfusion of the myocardium and organs. Drug therapy for infarct cardiogenic shock relies on dobutamine for inotropic agent and norepinephrine as a vasopressor. For further inotropic support, data on additional levosimendan treatment are available. The pharmacological therapy is supplemented by mechanical support systems such as Impella (ABIOMED, Danvers, MA, USA) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is hardly used anymore. The majority of cardiogenic shock survivors have little functional cardiac impairment in the long term. This shows the transient damage component (stunning, inflammation), which underlines the need for a fast and effective cardiovascular supportive therapy.

Gender disparities with the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention complicated by cardiogenic shock: From pVAD Working Group

Background

Hemodynamic support with Impella (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA) devices is becoming a more prevalent treatment option for patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There exists only limited published data regarding outcome differences between male and female patients. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to analyze these gender differences between short-term survival and in-hospital outcomes in those undergoing PCI with CS.

Methods

Between January 2011 and July 2016, patients undergoing PCI with simultaneous use of Impella were identified. Only patients presenting with CS were included in the analysis. All-cause in-hospital mortality was the primary outcome. Using SAS 9.4 for propensity score matching, additional secondary outcomes were also compared.

Results

The primary outcome was comparable between males and females (39.5% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.33) in CS patients. Secondary outcomes were also comparable and included: myocardial infarction, stroke, CS, heart failure, dialysis requirement, bleeding within 72 h, blood transfusion, dysrhythmia, composite of all complications, major adverse cardiac events. Survival at 30 days was equal in both groups. A reduced mortality in males was noted for pre-PCI initiation of Impella. Additionally, both genders who received pre-PCI Impella support, experienced a significant reduction in inotrope use.

Conclusions

Despite the small number of cohorts, this study did not reveal any significant differences among gender with the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist devices for PCI in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by CS. However, initiation of Impella prior to PCI may be associated with improved mortality and morbidity in both genders.

Prevalence, Causes, and Predictors of 30-Day Readmissions Following Hospitalization With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated By Cardiogenic Shock: Findings From the 2013-2014 National Readmissions Database

Background

Prior studies have shown that survivors of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock are likely to have increased risk of readmissions in the early post‐discharge period. However, the contemporary prevalence, reasons, and predictors of 30‐day readmissions are not well known.

Methods and Results

Hospitalizations for a primary diagnosis of AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock, and discharged alive, were identified in the 2013 and 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Databases. Prevalence and reasons for 30‐day unplanned readmissions were investigated. A hierarchical logistic regression model was used to identify independent predictors of 30‐day readmissions. Among 1 116 933 patient hospitalizations with AMI, 39 807 (3.6%) had cardiogenic shock and were discharged alive. Their 30‐day readmission rate was 18.6%, with a median time for readmission 10 days post discharge. Predictors of readmission included: non–ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction, female sex, low‐income status, nonprivate insurance, chronic renal failure, long‐term ventricular assist device or intra‐aortic balloon placement, and tachyarrhythmia. The majority of readmissions were attributable to cardiac‐related causes (52%); heart failure being the most frequent cardiac cause (39% of all cardiac causes). Noncardiac‐related readmissions included infections (14.9%), bleeding (5.3%), and respiratory causes (4.9%). The median cost per readmission was $9473 US dollars ($5037–20 199).

Conclusions

Among survivors of AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock who were discharged from hospital, almost 1 in 5 are readmitted at 30 days, mainly because of cardiac reasons such as heart failure and new AMI. The risk of readmission was associated with certain baseline patient/hospital characteristics.

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cardiogenic shock is a high-acuity, potentially complex, and hemodynamically diverse state of end-organ hypoperfusion that is frequently associated with multisystem organ failure. Despite improving survival in recent years, patient morbidity and mortality remain high, and there are few evidence-based therapeutic interventions known to clearly improve patient outcomes. This scientific statement on cardiogenic shock summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, causes, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock; reviews contemporary best medical, surgical, mechanical circulatory support, and palliative care practices; advocates for the development of regionalized systems of care; and outlines future research priorities.

Multivessel Revascularization in Shock and High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

This review explores the usefulness of multivessel revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) presenting with and without cardiogenic shock. We also evaluate the literature regarding complete versus incomplete revascularization for patients with cardiogenic shock, acute coronary syndromes, and stable coronary artery disease.

Controversies and Challenges in the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock

The prognosis in ST-elevation myocardial infarction has improved with coronary care units, revascularization, and anticoagulant strategies; however, cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a highly fatal condition. Controversies remain about optimal pharmacologic therapies, revascularization strategies, the role of mechanical circulatory support (MCS), and evidence-based patient selection. The current informed consent paradigm for clinical trials creates challenges testing treatments in CS patients, who are too ill to consent and require immediate treatment. Several trials are underway comparing revascularization strategies and MCS options. Although the prognosis is grim, careful, new and existing treatments could change the course of this condition in the coming years.

Management of Cardiogenic Shock Due to Acute Coronary Syndromes

Despite advances in the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndromes, there has been no significant decrease in the incidence of cardiogenic shock, while its mortality remains frustratingly high. Shock is a progressive state of hypotension (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg) lasting at least 30 minutes, which leads to systemic hypoperfusion. It is more common in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction than in patients with other acute coronary syndromes. Revascularization is associated with better outcomes than intensive medical therapy, especially in patients <75 years of age with cardiogenic shock. Adjunctive therapies include inotropes, vasopressor therapy, intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation, and IIb/IIIa blockade to prevent no-reflow phenomenon during primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Other adjunctive therapies which are investigated are improved mechanical support devices, and as medical therapy for myocyte protection nicorandil, glucose/insulin/potassium infusions and direct inhibition of Na+/H+ exchanger.

Primary Angioplasty For Patients in Cardiogenic Shock: Optimal Management

Cardiogenic shock complicates approximately 5-10 % of all MI events and remains the most common cause of death among MI cases. Over the past few decades, the mortality rate associated with cardiogenic shock has decreased with the introduction of early revascularisation, although there are limited data for patients with triple-vessel disease and left main stem disease. In more recent years, there have been a number of advances in the mechanical circulatory support devices that can help improve the haemodynamics of patients in cardiogenic shock. Despite these advances, together with progress in the use of inotropes and vasopressors, cardiogenic shock remains associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. This review will outline the management of cardiogenic shock complicating acute MI with a smajor focus on revascularisation techniques and the use of mechanical circulatory support devices.

Decade-Long Trends (2001-2011) in the Incidence and Hospital Death Rates Associated with the In-Hospital Development of Cardiogenic Shock after Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Limited information is available about relatively contemporary trends in the incidence and hospital case-fatality rates of cardiogenic shock in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction. The purpose of this population-based study was to describe decade long trends (2001-2011) in the incidence and hospital case-fatality rates for patients who developed cardiogenic shock during hospitalization for an acute myocardial infarction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study population consisted of 5686 residents of central Massachusetts hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction at all 11 medical centers in the Worcester, MA, metropolitan area during 6 biennial periods between 2001 and 2011, who did not have cardiogenic shock at the time of hospital presentation. On average, 3.7% of these patients developed cardiogenic shock during their acute hospitalization with nonsignificant and inconsistent trends noted over time in both crude (3.7% in 2001/2003; 4.5% in 2005/2007; 2.7% in 2009/2011; P=0.19) and multivariable adjusted analyses. The overall in-hospital case-fatality rate for patients who developed cardiogenic shock was 41.4%. The crude and multivariable adjusted odds of dying after cardiogenic shock declined during the most recent study years (47.1% dying in 2001/2003, 42.0% dying in 2005/2007, and 28.6% dying in 2009/2011). Increases in the use of evidence-based cardiac medications, and interventional procedures paralleled the increasing hospital survival trends.

CONCLUSIONS

We found suggestions of a decline in the death, but not incidence, rates of cardiogenic shock over time. These encouraging trends in hospital survival are likely because of advances in the early recognition and aggressive management of patients who develop cardiogenic shock.

Outcomes with invasive vs conservative management of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

In the SHOCK trial, an invasive strategy of early revascularization was associated with a significant mortality benefit at 6 months when compared with initial stabilization in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Our objectives were to evaluate the data on real-world practice and outcomes of invasive vs conservative management in patients with cardiogenic shock.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2002 to 2011 with primary discharge diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction and secondary diagnosis of cardiogenic shock. Propensity score matching was used to assemble a cohort of patients managed invasively (with cardiac catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery) vs conservatively with similar baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

We identified 60,833 patients with cardiogenic shock, of which 20,644 patients (10,322 in each group) with similar propensity scores, including 11,004 elderly patients (≥75 years), were in the final analysis. Patients who underwent invasive management had 59% lower odds of in-hospital mortality (37.7% vs 59.7%; odds ratio [OR] 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.43; P < .0001) when compared with those managed conservatively. This lower mortality was consistently seen across all tested subgroups; specifically in the elderly (≥75 years) (44.0% vs 63.6%; OR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.42-0.49; P < .0001) and those younger than 75 years (30.6% vs 55.1%; OR 0.36; 95% CI, 0.33-0.39; P < .0001), although the magnitude of risk reduction differed (Pinteraction < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this largest cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction, patients managed invasively had significantly lower mortality when compared with those managed conservatively, even in the elderly. Our results emphasize the need for aggressive management in this high-risk subgroup.

Influence of cardiogenic shock with or without the use of intra-aortic balloon pump on mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Background

Cardiogenic shock is a serious complication of a ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We compared short- and long-term mortality among (1) STEMI patients with and without cardiogenic shock and (2) STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock with and without the use of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP).

Methods

From January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2010, all patients presenting with STEMI and treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were identified. The hazard ratio (HR) for death was estimated using a Cox regression model, controlling for potential confounding.

Results

The study cohort consisted of 4293 STEMI patients: 286 (6.7%) with and 4007 (93.3%) without cardiogenic shock. Compared with patients without cardiogenic shock, patients with cardiogenic shock were older, and more likely to have diabetes mellitus, multi-vessel disease, anterior myocardial infarction (MI) or bundle-branch block MI and a reduced creatinine clearance.

Among patients with cardiogenic shock vs. without shock, 30-day cumulative mortality was 57.3% vs. 4.5% (p < 0.001), one-year cumulative mortality was 60.7% vs. 8.2% (p < 0.001) and five-year mortality was 65.0% vs. 18.9% (p < 0.001). STEMI with cardiogenic shock was associated with higher 30-day mortality (adjusted HR = 12.89 [95% CI: 9.72–16.66]), 1-year mortality (adjusted HR = 8.83 [95% CI: 7.06–11.05]) and five-year mortality (adjusted HR = 6.39 [95% CI: 5.22–7.80]). IABP was used in 71 (25%) patients with cardiogenic shock and was associated with improved 30-day outcome (adjusted HR = 0.48 [95% CI: 0.28–0.83]).

Conclusion

Patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock had substantial short- and long-term mortality that may be improved with IABP implantation. More studies on use of IABP in such patients are warranted.