Cardiogenic shock management: Still a challenge and a need for large-registry data

Predicting the development of in-hospital cardiogenic shock in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention: the ORBI risk score

Aims

To derive and validate a readily useable risk score to identify patients at high-risk of in-hospital ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)-related cardiogenic shock (CS).

Methods and results

In all, 6838 patients without CS on admission and treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI), included in the Observatoire Régional Breton sur l'Infarctus (ORBI), served as a derivation cohort, and 2208 patients included in the obseRvatoire des Infarctus de Côte-d'Or (RICO) constituted the external validation cohort. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression was used to build the score. Eleven variables were independently associated with the development of in-hospital CS: age >70 years, prior stroke/transient ischaemic attack, cardiac arrest upon admission, anterior STEMI, first medical contact-to-pPCI delay >90 min, Killip class, heart rate >90/min, a combination of systolic blood pressure <125 mmHg and pulse pressure <45 mmHg, glycaemia >10 mmol/L, culprit lesion of the left main coronary artery, and post-pPCI thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grade <3. The score derived from these variables allowed the classification of patients into four risk categories: low (0-7), low-to-intermediate (8-10), intermediate-to-high (11-12), and high (≥13). Observed in-hospital CS rates were 1.3%, 6.6%, 11.7%, and 31.8%, across the four risk categories, respectively. Validation in the RICO cohort demonstrated in-hospital CS rates of 3.1% (score 0-7), 10.6% (score 8-10), 18.1% (score 11-12), and 34.1% (score ≥13). The score demonstrated high discrimination (c-statistic of 0.84 in the derivation cohort, 0.80 in the validation cohort) and adequate calibration in both cohorts.

Conclusion

The ORBI risk score provides a readily useable and efficient tool to identify patients at high-risk of developing CS during hospitalization following STEMI, which may aid in further risk-stratification and thus potentially facilitate pre-emptive clinical decision making.

Predictive factors for long-term mortality in miscellaneous cardiogenic shock: Protective role of beta-blockers at admission

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in intensive care medicine, management of cardiogenic shock (CS) remains difficult and imperfect, with high mortality rates, regardless of aetiology. Predictive data regarding long-term mortality rates in patients presenting CS are sparse.

AIM

To describe prognostic factors for long-term mortality in CS of different aetiologies.

METHODS

Two hundred and seventy-five patients with CS admitted to our tertiary centre between January 2013 and December 2014 were reviewed retrospectively. Mortality was recorded in December 2016. A Cox proportional-hazards model was used to determine predictors of long-term mortality.

RESULTS

Most patients were male (72.7%), with an average age of 64±16 years and a history of cardiomyopathy (63.5%), mainly ischaemic (42.3%). Leading causes of CS were myocardial infarction (35.3%), decompensated heart failure (34.2%) and cardiac arrest (20.7%). Long-term mortality was 62.5%. After multivariable analysis, previous use of beta-blockers (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.89; P=0.02) and coronary angiography exploration at admission (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.86; P=0.02) were associated with a lower risk of long-term mortality. Conversely, age (HR 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01-1.04; P<0.001), catecholamine support (HR 1.45 for each additional agent, 95% CI 1.20-1.75; P<0.001) and renal replacement therapy (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.09-2.55; P=0.02) were associated with an increased risk of long-term mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term mortality rates in CS remain high, reaching 60% at 1-year follow-up. Previous use of beta-blockers and coronary angiography exploration at admission were associated with better long-term survival, while age, renal replacement therapy and the use of catecholamines appeared to worsen the prognosis, and should lead to intensification of CS management.

Design and preliminary results of FRENSHOCK 2016: A prospective nationwide multicentre registry on cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUND

Most data on the epidemiology of cardiogenic shock (CS) have come from patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to intensive cardiac care units (ICCUs). However, CS can have other aetiologies, and could be managed in intensive care units (ICUs), especially the most severe forms of CS.

AIM

To gather data on the characteristics, management and outcomes of patients hospitalized in ICCUs and ICUs for CS, whatever the aetiology, in France in 2016.

METHODS

We included all adult patients with CS between April and October 2016 in metropolitan France. CS was defined (at admission or during hospitalization) by: low cardiac output, defined by systolic blood pressure<90mmHg and/or the need for amines to maintain systolic blood pressure>90mmHg and/or cardiac index<2.2L/min/m²; elevation of the left and/or right heart pressures, defined by clinical, radiological, biological, echocardiographic or invasive haemodynamic overload signs; and clinical and/or biological signs of malperfusion (lactate>2mmol/L, hepatic insufficiency, renal failure).

RESULTS

Over a 6-month period, 772 patients were included in the survey (mean age 65.7±14.9 years; 71.5% men) from 49 participating centres (91.8% were public, and 77.8% of these were university hospitals). Ischaemic trigger was the most common cause (36.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

To date, FRENSHOCK is the largest CS survey; it will provide a detailed and comprehensive global description of the spectrum and management of patients with CS in a high-income country.

Current indications for the intra-aortic balloon pump: The CP-GARO registry

BACKGROUND

Intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs) have been used routinely since the 1970s. Recently, large randomized trials failed to show that IABP therapy has meaningful benefit, and international recommendations downgraded its place, particularly in cardiogenic shock.

AIMS

The aim of this registry was to describe the contemporary use of IABP therapy, in light of these new data.

METHODS

This prospective multicentre registry included 172 patients implanted with an IABP in 19 French cardiac centres in 2015. Baseline characteristics, aetiologies leading to IABP use, and IABP-related and disease-related complications were assessed. In-hospital and 1-year mortality rates were studied.

RESULTS

A total of 172 patients were included (mean age 65.5±12.0 years; 118 men [68.6%]). The reasons for IABP implantation were mainly haemodynamic (n=107; 62.2%), followed by bridge to revascularization (n=34; 19.8%) and four other "rare" aetiologies (n=29 patients; 16.8%). In-hospital and 1-year mortality rates were 40.7% and 45.8%, respectively. Fourteen patients (8.1%) experienced ischaemic or haemorrhagic complications, which were directly related to the IABP in seven patients (4.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite current international guidelines regarding the place of IABPs in ischaemic cardiogenic shock without mechanical complications, this aetiology remains the leading cause for its utilization in the contemporary era.

Place de l’assistance circulatoire dans le choc cardiogénique en France en 2018 : revue de la littérature et perspectives

Le choc cardiogénique reste de nos jours une entité mal définie, assez fréquente en pratique clinique (60 000–70 000 cas/an en Europe), dont le pronostic est sombre, avec une mortalité souvent supérieure à 40 % à 30 jours. À travers cette revue de la littérature, nous essaierons de définir cette entité et ses étiologies, avant de parler de son incidence et de son pronostic. L’approche physiopathologique du choc cardiogénique nous permettra par la suite d’approcher sa prise en charge thérapeutique classique (gestion de la volémie, amines inotropes et vasoconstrictives, ventilation) et les limites de cette dernière. Ainsi, nous aborderons les assistances circulatoires et cardiocirculatoires disponibles en France, afin de les envisager au sein d’une stratégie globale de prise en charge du patient en choc cardiogénique. Nous discuterons plus spécifiquement leurs indications ainsi que l’importance du moment d’implantation afin d’optimiser leur efficacité. Enfin, nous évoquerons les assistances actuellement en développement, mais également les nouvelles stratégies thérapeutiques qui pourraient arriver dans les prochaines années.

'Combat' Approach to Cardiogenic Shock

The incidence of cardiogenic shock is rising, patient complexity is increasing and patient survival has plateaued. Mirroring organisational innovations of elite military units, our multidisciplinary medical specialists at the INOVA Heart and Vascular Institute aim to combine the adaptability, agility and cohesion of small teams across our large healthcare system. We advocate for widespread adoption of our 'combat' methodology focused on: increased disease awareness, early multidisciplinary shock team activation, group decision-making, rapid initiation of mechanical circulatory support (as appropriate), haemodynamic-guided management, strict protocol adherence, complete data capture and regular after action reviews, with a goal of ending preventable death from cardiogenic shock.