Management of cardiogenic shock in acute decompensated chronic heart failure: The ALTSHOCK phase II clinical trial

Inotropic Agents: Are We Still in the Middle of Nowhere?

Inotropes are prescribed to enhance myocardial contractility while vasopressors serve to improve vascular tone. Although these medications remain a life-saving therapy in cardiovascular clinical scenarios with hemodynamic impairment, the paucity of evidence on these drugs makes the choice of the most appropriate vasoactive agent challenging. As such, deep knowledge of their pharmacological and hemodynamic effects becomes crucial to optimizing hemodynamic profile while reducing the potential adverse effects. Given this perspective, it is imperative for cardiologists to possess a comprehensive understanding of the underlying mechanisms governing these agents and to discern optimal strategies for their application across diverse clinical contexts. Thus, we briefly review these agents' pharmacological and hemodynamic properties and their reasonable clinical applications in cardiovascular settings. Critical interpretation of available data and the opportunities for future investigations are also highlighted.

Differences between cardiogenic shock related to acute decompensated heart failure and acute myocardial infarction

AIMS

The present analysis from the multicentre prospective Altshock-2 registry aims to better define clinical features, in-hospital course, and management of cardiogenic shock complicating acutely decompensated heart failure (ADHF-CS) as compared with that complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

All patients with AMI-CS or ADHF-CS enrolled in the Altshock-2 registry between March 2020 and February 2022 were selected. The primary objective was the characterization of ADHF-CS patients as compared with AMI-CS. In-hospital length of stay and mortality were secondary endpoints. One-hundred-ninety of the 238 CS patients enrolled in the aforementioned period were considered for the present analysis: 101 AMI-CS (80% ST-elevated myocardial infarction and 20% non-ST-elevated myocardial infarction) and 89 ADHF-CS. As compared with AMI-CS, ADHF-CS patients were younger [63 (IQR 59-76) vs. 67 (IQR 54-73) years, P = 0.01], but presented with higher creatinine [1.6 (IQR 1.0-2.6) vs. 1.2 (IQR 1.0-1.4) mg/dL, P < 0.001], bilirubin [1.3 (IQR 0.9-2.3) vs. 0.6 (IQR 0.4-1.1) mg/dL, P = 0.01], and central venous pressure values [14 mmHg (IQR 8-12) vs. 10 mmHg (IQR 7-14),P = 0.01]. Norepinephrine was the most common catecholamine used in AMI-CS (79.3%), whereas epinephrine was used more commonly in ADHF-CS (65.5%); 75.8% vs. 46.6% received a temporary mechanical support in AMI-CS and ADHF-CS, respectively (P < 0.001). Length of hospital stay was longer in the latter [28 (IQR 13-48) vs. 17 (IQR 9-29) days, P = 0.001]. Heart replacement therapies were more frequently used in the ADHF-CS group (heart transplantation 13.5% vs. 0% and left ventricular assist device 11% vs. 2%, P < 0.01 and 0.01, respectively). In-hospital mortality was 41.1% (38.6% AMI-CS vs. 43.8% ADHF-CS, P = 0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

ADHF-CS is characterized by a higher prevalence of end-organ and biventricular dysfunction at presentation, a longer hospital length of stay, and higher need of heart replacement therapies when compared with AMI-CS. In-hospital mortality was similar between the two aetiologies. Our data warrant development of new management protocols focused on CS aetiology.

Innovative Device-Based Strategies for Managing Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is a major cause of hospitalizations in older adults, leading to high mortality, morbidity, and healthcare costs. To address the persistent poor outcomes in ADHF, novel device-based approaches targeting specific pathophysiological mechanisms are urgently needed. The recently introduced DRI2P2S classification categorizes these innovative therapies based on their mechanisms. Devices include dilators (increasing venous capacitance), removers (directly removing sodium and water), inotropes (enhancing left ventricular contractility), interstitials (accelerating lymph removal), pushers (increasing renal arterial pressure), pullers (decreasing renal venous pressure), and selective drippers (selective intrarenal drug infusion). Some are tailored for chronic HF, while others focus on the acute setting. Most devices are in early development, necessitating further research to understand mechanisms, assess clinical effectiveness, and ensure safety before routine use in ADHF management. Exploring these innovative device-based strategies may lead to improved outcomes and revolutionize HF treatment in the future.

Acute mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock in India

Cardiogenic shock continues to have high morbidity and mortality, despite advances in the field. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (TMCS) devices, if instituted in a timely fashion, can help stabilize critically ill patients with cardiogenic shock from various aetiologies and cardiac arrest, and provide time for organ recovery or till durable support or transplantation can be achieved. Currently, several options for TMCS devices exist. In this review, we discuss indications, contraindications, characteristics of the various available devices, and important issues pertaining to their management.

Acute kidney injury in patients with acute decompensated heart failure-cardiogenic shock: Prevalence, risk factors and outcome

BACKGROUND

Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) represents a major complication of acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock (CS). There is a paucity of data on AKI complicating acutely decompensated heart failure patients presenting with CS (ADHF-CS). We aimed to investigate AKI prevalence, risk factors and outcomes in this subgroup of patients.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study on patients admitted for ADHF-CS to our 12-bed Intensive Care Unit (ICU), between January 2010 and December 2019. Demographic, clinical, and biochemical variables were collected at baseline and during hospital stay.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients were consecutively recruited. The predominant etiologies were idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (47%), followed by post-ischemic (24%). AKI was diagnosed in 70 (79.5%) of patients. Forty-three out of 70 patients met the criteria for AKI at ICU admission. On multivariate analysis, a central venous pressure (CVP) higher than 10 mmHg (OR 3.9; 95%CI 1.2-12.6; p = 0.025) and serum lactate higher than 3 mmol/L (OR 4.1; 95%CI 1.01-16.3; p = 0.048) were identified to be independently associated with AKI. Age and AKI stage were independent predictors of 90-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

AKI is a common and early complication of ADHF-CS. Venous congestion and severe hypoperfusion are risk factors for AKI development. Early detection and prevention of AKI could lead to better outcome in this clinical subgroup.

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.

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

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

The role of temporary mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to advanced heart failure therapies or recovery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) has become central in the treatment of refractory cardiogenic shock and can be used to bridge patients to durable MCS, heart transplant or recovery. This review will discuss contemporary data regarding bridging strategies utilizing tMCS.

RECENT FINDINGS

There has been significant growth in tMCS use recently, driven by increased familiarity with tMCS devices, and increased experience with both implantation and management. Identifying goals of therapy at the time of therapy initiation can facilitate better outcomes. The three primary goals are bridge to recovery, bridge to heart transplantation or bridge to durable left ventricular assist device. Bridging to recovery requires adequate treatment of underlying conditions and optimization of haemodynamics. Bridging to heart transplantation has become more frequent following changes to the heart allocation policy. Despite early concerns, patients bridge with tMCS, including ventricular-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, do not appear to have worse posttransplant outcomes. When bridging to durable mechanical circulatory support, tMCS can be used to enhance end-organ dysfunction and improve perioperative outcomes. In situations in which none of these goals are attainable, palliative care plays a critical role to identify patient wishes and assist with withdrawal of care when necessary.

SUMMARY

The use of tMCS, as a bridge to recovery or heart replacement therapy in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock has grown significantly over the past decade. Multiple device choices are available and must be chosen appropriately to address the specific situation and the goals of therapy.

Clinical profile and in-hospital outcome of patients supported by intra-aortic balloon pump in the clinical setting of cardiogenic shock

Background

Despite controversial evidences, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is still the most widely used temporary mechanical support device in cardiogenic shock (CS), as a bridge to recovery or to more invasive mechanical supports/heart transplantation.

Methods

We analyzed retrospectively data of all patients receiving IABP for CS from 2009 to 2018 in a referral centre for advanced heart failure and heart transplantation; we included CS following acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and other CS etiologies different from ACS. We excluded patients in which IABP was implanted as a support following cardiac surgery, non-cardiac surgery in patients with severe chronic heart failure, or in elective high risk or complicated Cath Lab procedures.We focused on in-hospital outcomes (including death, recovery, heart transplantation, LVAD) and IABP complications.

Results

403 patients received IABP, 303 (75.2%) following ACS and 100 (24.8%) in non-ACS CS. Non-ACS patients were younger (59 ± 18.3 vs 73.1 ± 12.6 years, p < 0.001), had lower median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (25% [18-35] vs 38% [25-45], p < 0.001). In patients with non-ACS etiologies IABP was more frequently a bridge to heart transplantation [20% (n = 20) vs 0.3% (n = 1), P < 0.001] or LVAD [4% (n = 4) vs 0.6% (n = 2), P = 0.055], while ACS patients were more frequently discharged without transplantation/LVAD [65.7% (n = 199) vs 33% (n = 33), P < 0.001]. Non-ACS patients showed higher in-hospital mortality [46% (n = 46) vs 33.9% (n = 103), P = 0.042]. Post-transplant/LVAD outcome in non-ACS subgroup was favorable (21 out of 24 patients were discharged). Serious IABP-related adverse events occurred in 21 patients (5.2%). Ischemic/hemorrhagic complications, infections and thrombocytopenia were more frequent with longer IABP stay.

Conclusions

Despite therapy including percutaneous circulatory support, mortality in CS is still high. In our experience, in the clinical setting of refractory CS an IABP support represents a relatively safe circulatory support, associated with a low rate of serious complications in complex clinical scenarios.

Pulmonary Artery Catheter Monitoring in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Time for a Reappraisal?

Cardiogenic shock represents one of the most dramatic scenarios to deal with in intensive cardiology care and is burdened by substantial short-term mortality. An integrated approach, including timely diagnosis and phenotyping, along with a well-established shock team and management protocol, may improve survival. The use of the Swan-Ganz catheter could play a pivotal role in various phases of cardiogenic shock management, encompassing diagnosis and haemodynamic characterisation to treatment selection, titration and weaning. Moreover, it is essential in the evaluation of patients who might be candidates for long-term heart-replacement strategies. This review provides a historical background on the use of the Swan-Ganz catheter in the intensive care unit and an analysis of the available evidence in terms of potential prognostic implications in this setting.

Prognostic implications of pulmonary artery catheter monitoring in patients with cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) monitoring on survival of cardiogenic shock(CS), in the light of the controversies in available evidence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library and Web of Science were systematically screened to identify most relevant studies on patients with CS comparing PAC use to non-use during hospital stay. Short-term mortality was the primary endpoint and the use of Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS) devices was the secondary one.

RESULTS

Six observational studies including 1,166,762 patients were selected. The most frequent etiology of CS was post-myocardial infarction (75% [95% CI 55-89%] in PAC-group and 81%[95% CI 47-95%] in non-PAC group). Overall, PAC was used in 33%(95% CI 24-44%) of cases. Pooling data adjusted for confounders, a significant association between the PAC-group and a reduction in short-term mortality emerged when compared to the non-PAC group (36%[95% CI 27-45%] vs 47%[95% CI 35-59%];AdjustedOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.87, p < 0.01). MCS use was significantly higher in PAC vs non-PAC group (59% [95% CI 54-65%]) vs 48% [95% CI 43-53%]);OR 1.60 [95% CI 1.27-2.02, p < 0.01]).

CONCLUSIONS

PAC was associated with lower incidence of short-term mortality in CS pooling adjusted observational studies. Prospective studies are needed to confirm our hypothesis and better clarify the mechanisms of this potential prognostic benefit.

Effect of landiolol in patients with tachyarrhythmias and acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF): a case series

Tachycardia and rapid tachyarrhythmias are common in acute clinical settings and may hasten the deterioration of haemodynamics in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), treated with inotropes. The concomitant use of a short‐acting β1‐selective beta‐blocker, such as landiolol, could rapidly and safely restore an adequate heart rate without any negative inotropic effect. We present a case series of five patients with left ventricular dysfunction, admitted to our Intensive Cardiac Care Unit with ADHF deteriorated to cardiogenic shock, treated with a combination of landiolol and inotropes. Landiolol was effective in terms of rate control and haemodynamics optimization, enabling de‐escalation of catecholamine dosing in all patients. The infusion was always well tolerated without hypotension. In conclusion, a continuous infusion of a low dose of landiolol (3–16 mcg/kg/min) to manage tachycardia and ventricular or supraventricular tachyarrhythmias in haemodynamically unstable patients may be considered.

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

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

Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure With Hypoperfusion: From Pathophysiology to Clinical Practice

Trials on intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use in cardiogenic shock related to acute myocardial infarction have shown disappointing results. The role of IABP in cardiogenic shock treatment remains unclear, and new (potentially more potent) mechanical circulatory supports with arguably larger device profile are emerging. A reappraisal of the physiological premises of intra-aortic counterpulsation may underpin the rationale to maintain IABP as a valuable therapeutic option for patients with acute decompensated heart failure and tissue hypoperfusion. Several pathophysiological features differ between myocardial infarction- and acute decompensated heart failure-related hypoperfusion, encompassing cardiogenic shock severity, filling status, systemic vascular resistances rise, and adaptation to chronic (if preexisting) left ventricular dysfunction. IABP combines a more substantial effect on left ventricular afterload with a modest increase in cardiac output and would therefore be most suitable in clinical scenarios characterized by a disproportionate increase in afterload without profound hemodynamic compromise. The acute decompensated heart failure syndrome is characterized by exquisite afterload-sensitivity of cardiac output and may be an ideal setting for counterpulsation. Several hemodynamic variables have been shown to predict response to IABP within this scenario, potentially guiding appropriate patient selection. Finally, acute decompensated heart failure with hypoperfusion may frequently represent an end stage in the heart failure history: IABP may provide sufficient hemodynamic support and prompt end-organ function recovery in view of more definitive heart replacement therapies while preserving ambulation when used with a transaxillary approach.

How Would the Authors Treat Their Own Temporary Left Ventricular Failure With Mechanical Circulatory Support?

In the last 20 years, mechanical circulatory supports (MCS) have overturned completely the outcomes and the clinical recovery of patients with isolated acute left ventricle failure (iALVF). This usually occurs more frequently than right-sided heart failure or biventricular dysfunction, and it mainly is caused by acute myocardial infarction. The primary role of MCS is to restore the tissue metabolism to preserve the vital organs' function but, on the other hand, they also have to relieve the workload stress on the heart. In this way, they allow not only the heart to recover from the acute event, but MCS also can stabilize the patient toward cardiac transplantation. The short-term MCS devices currently used in clinical practice are the intraaortic balloon pump, the Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA), and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), but the choice of the right and tailored device for each patient, as well as the timing to use it, is actually one of the most debated topics of MCS management.

Safety and Feasibility of an Early Mobilization Protocol for Patients with Femoral Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps as Bridge to Heart Transplant

Intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs) can be used to provide hemodynamic support in patients with end-stage heart failure as a bridge to transplantation (BTT). The IABP is commonly inserted via the common femoral artery, which can limit patients' mobility. The Ramsey protocol, developed by a critical care physical therapist, allows patients with femoral IABPs to ambulate with the assistance of a tilt table. The aim of this study was to determine the safety and feasibility of a modified Ramsey protocol for early mobilization of patients with femoral IABPs as BTT. This is a retrospective single-center review of patients with femoral IABPs as BTT using a tilt table protocol from May 2019 to May 2020. Primary outcomes were time to successful ambulation, number of successful ambulation events, and ambulation-associated adverse events, including IABP augmentation, waveform, positioning changes, and vascular complications at the insertion site. Twenty-four patients (mean age 55 ± 16 years) underwent femoral IABP insertion as BTT and were mobilized following our protocol. Nineteen patients (79.2%) successfully ambulated with a median of three sessions (interquartile range, 2-4) per patient. The median time from IABP insertion to ambulation was 3 days (interquartile range, 2-5). Twenty-one patients underwent heart transplantation, of which all 19 who ambulated were successfully bridged to transplantation. Early mobilization in select patients with femoral IABPs can be performed safely and successfully, avoiding the deleterious effects of bed rest that have been historically seen in this patient population.

Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump as a Bridge to Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device

Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are increasingly being used as destination therapy in patients with Stage D heart failure. It has been reported that a majority of patients who receive a durable LVAD (dLVAD) present in cardiogenic shock due to decompensated heart failure (ADHF‐CS). As it stands, there is no consensus on the optimal management strategy for patients presenting with ADHF. Bridging with intra‐aortic balloon pumps (IABPs) continues to be a therapeutic option in patients with hemodynamic instability due to cardiogenic shock. The majority of data regarding the use of IABP in cardiogenic shock come from studies in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock and demonstrates that there is no benefit of routine IABP use in this patient population. However, the role of IABPs as a bridge to dLVAD in ADHF‐CS has yet to be determined. The hemodynamic changes seen in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock are known to be different and more acutely impaired than those presenting with ADHF‐CS as evidenced by differences in pressure/volume loops. Thus, data should not be extrapolated across these 2 very different disease processes. The aim of this review is to describe results from contemporary studies examining the use of IABPs as a bridge to dLVAD in patients with ADHF‐CS. Retrospective evidence from large registries suggests that the use of IABP as a bridge to dLVAD is feasible and safe when compared with other platforms of temporary mechanical circulatory support. However, there is currently a paucity of high‐quality evidence examining this increasingly important clinical question.

Vasoactive pharmacologic therapy in cardiogenic shock: a critical review

Background

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is an acute complex condition leading to morbidity and mortality. Vasoactive medications, such as vasopressors and inotropes are considered the cornerstone of pharmacological treatment of CS to improve end-organ perfusion by increasing cardiac output (CO) and blood pressure (BP), thus preventing multiorgan failure.

Objective

A critical review was conducted to analyze the currently available randomized studies of vasoactive agents in CS to determine the indications of each agent and to critically appraise the methodological quality of the studies.

Methods

PubMed database search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on vasoactive therapy in CS. After study selection, the internal validity of the selected studies was critically appraised using the three-item Jadad scale.

Results

Nine studies randomized 2388 patients with a mean age ranged between 62 and 69 years, were identified. Seven of studies investigated CS in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The studies evaluated the comparisons of norepinephrine (NE) vs. dopamine, epinephrine vs. NE, levosimendan vs. dobutamine, enoximone or placebo, and nitric oxide synthase inhibitors (NOSi) vs. placebo. The mean Jadad score of the nine studies was 3.33, with only three studies of a score of 5.

Conclusions

The evidence from the studies of vasoactive agents in CS carries uncertainties. The methodological quality between the studies is variable due to the inherent difficulties to conduct a study in CS. Vasopressors and inotropes continue to have a fundamental role given the lack of pharmacological alternatives.

Predicting survival in patients with acute decompensated heart failure complicated by cardiogenic shock

Background

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) has unique pathophysiological background requiring specific patient stratification, management and therapeutic targets. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to derive a simple stratification tool to predict survival in patients with ADHF complicated by CS.

Methods and results

Using logistic regression, univariable testing was performed to identify the variables potentially associated with 28-day mortality. We propose a new logistic model (ALC-Shock score) based on three easy parameters (age, serum creatinine and serum lactate at the ICU admission) as a powerful predictor of survival or successful bridge to heart replacement therapy at 28-day follow-up in this specific population. A multivariable analysis (logistic model) was performed to evaluate the association between selected variables and outcome (overall death at 28-day follow up). The score was then validated in a different cohort of 93 ADHF-CS patients and compared to a previous developed score (the Cardshock score).Overall, 28-day mortality was 34%. The ALC-shock score showed better discrimination (Area Under the Curve-AUC- 0.82; 95% CI 0.73-0.91) as compared to the Cardshock score (AUC 0.67; 95% CI 0.55-0.79) (p = 0.009) to predict 28-days overall mortality. In the validation cohort the AUC for the ALC-shock score was 0.66.

Conclusions

A simple score including age, lactates and creatinine on admission could be considered to predict short-term mortality in CS-ADHF patients in order to drive towards a treatment intensification.

Mechanical Support in Early Cardiogenic Shock: What Is the Role of Intra-aortic Balloon Counterpulsation?

Purpose of Review

We aim to summarize recent insights and provide an up-to-date overview on the role of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation in cardiogenic shock (CS).

Recent Findings

In the largest randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patients with CS after acute myocardial infarction (AMICS), IABP did not lower mortality. However, recent data suggest a role for IABP in patients who have persistent ischemia after revascularization. Moreover, in the growing population of CS not caused by acute coronary syndrome (ACS), multiple retrospective studies and one small RCT report on significant hemodynamic improvement following (early) initiation of IABP support, which allowed bridging of most patients to recovery or definitive therapies like heart transplant or a left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

Summary

Routine use of IABP in patients with AMICS is not recommended, but many patients with CS either from ischemic or non-ischemic cause may benefit from IABP at least for hemodynamic improvement in the short term. There is a need for a larger RCT regarding the role of IABP in selected patients with ACS, as well as in patients with non-ACS CS.

Use of edge-to-edge percutaneous mitral valve repair for severe mitral regurgitation in cardiogenic shock: A multicenter observational experience (MITRA-SHOCK study)

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of edge-to-edge PMVR on short and mid-term clinical outcomes in patients with CS and severe MR.

BACKGROUND

Severe mitral regurgitation (MR) in the setting of cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with three times higher risk of 1-year mortality. In refractory CS, edge-to-edge percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVR) can be a potential therapeutic option.

METHODS

We retrospectively included consecutive patients with refractory CS and concomitant severe MR treated with MitraClip® system. CS was defined according to the criteria used in the SHOCK trial and procedural success according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) criteria. The 30-day and 6-month mortality were the primary and secondary endpoints respectively.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients (median age 73 years [interquartile range, IQR 66-78], 25.8% female), STS mortality score 37.9 [IQR 30.4-42.4]), with CS and concomitant severe MR treated with edge-to-edge PMVR were retrospectively enrolled. Procedural success was 87.1%. Thirty-day and 6-month survival rates were 78.4 and 45.2% respectively. Univariate Cox Regression Model analysis showed that procedural success was a predictor of both 30-day (HR = 0.12, 95% CI 0.03-0.55, p < .01) and 6-month survival (HR = 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.84, p = .027).

CONCLUSIONS

Edge-to-edge PMVR in patients with CS and concomitant severe MR was associated with good procedural safety and success with acceptable short and mid-term survival rates. It could be considered a bailout option in this setting of patients.

Endocrine Challenges in Patients with Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices

Heart failure (HF) remains a leading cause of morbidity, hospitalization, and mortality worldwide. Advancement of mechanical circulatory support technology has led to the use of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), reducing hospitalizations, and improving quality of life and outcomes in advanced HF. Recent studies have highlighted how metabolic and endocrine dysfunction may be a consequence of, or associated with, HF, and may represent a novel (still neglected) therapeutic target in the treatment of HF. On the other hand, it is not clear whether LVAD support, may impact the outcome by also improving organ perfusion as well as improving the neuro-hormonal state of the patients, reducing the endocrine dysfunction. Moreover, endocrine function is likely a major determinant of human homeostasis, and is a key issue in the recovery from critical illness. Care of the endocrine function may contribute to improving cardiac contractility, immune function, as well as infection control, and rehabilitation during and after a LVAD placement. In this review, data on endocrine challenges in patients carrying an LVAD are gathered to highlight pathophysiological states relevant to this setting of patients, and to summarize the current therapeutic suggestions in the treatment of thyroid dysfunction, and vitamin D, erythropoietin and testosterone administration.

Early intra-aortic balloon pump in acute decompensated heart failure complicated by cardiogenic shock: Rationale and design of the randomized Altshock-2 trial

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a systemic disorder associated with dismal short-term prognosis. Given its time-dependent nature, mechanical circulatory support may improve survival. Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) had gained widespread use because of the easiness to implant and the low rate of complications; however, a randomized trial failed to demonstrate benefit on mortality in the setting of acute myocardial infarction. Acute decompensated heart failure with cardiogenic shock (ADHF-CS) represents a growing resource-intensive scenario with scant data and indications on the best management. However, a few data suggest a potential benefit of IABP in this setting. We present the design of a study aimed at addressing this research gap.

METHODS AND DESIGN

The Altshock-2 trial is a prospective, randomized, multicenter, open-label study with blinded adjudicated evaluation of outcomes. Patients with ADHF-CS will be randomized to early IABP implantation or to vasoactive treatments. The primary end point will be 60 days patients' survival or successful bridge to heart replacement therapy. The key secondary end point will be 60-day overall survival; 60-day need for renal replacement therapy; in-hospital maximum inotropic score, maximum duration of inotropic/vasopressor therapy, and maximum sequential organ failure assessment score. Safety end points will be in-hospital occurrence of bleeding events (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium >3), vascular access complications and systemic (noncerebral) embolism. The sample size for the study is 200 patients.

IMPLICATIONS

The Altshock-2 trial will provide evidence on whether IABP should be implanted early in ADHF-CS patients to improve their clinical outcomes.

Current use of inotropes in circulatory shock

Background

Treatment decisions on critically ill patients with circulatory shock lack consensus. In an international survey, we aimed to evaluate the indications, current practice, and therapeutic goals of inotrope therapy in the treatment of patients with circulatory shock.

Methods

From November 2016 to April 2017, an anonymous web-based survey on the use of cardiovascular drugs was accessible to members of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). A total of 14 questions focused on the profile of respondents, the triggering factors, first-line choice, dosing, timing, targets, additional treatment strategy, and suggested effect of inotropes. In addition, a group of 42 international ESICM experts was asked to formulate recommendations for the use of inotropes based on 11 questions.

Results

A total of 839 physicians from 82 countries responded. Dobutamine was the first-line inotrope in critically ill patients with acute heart failure for 84% of respondents. Two-thirds of respondents (66%) stated to use inotropes when there were persistent clinical signs of hypoperfusion or persistent hyperlactatemia despite a supposed adequate use of fluids and vasopressors, with (44%) or without (22%) the context of low left ventricular ejection fraction. Nearly half (44%) of respondents stated an adequate cardiac output as target for inotropic treatment. The experts agreed on 11 strong recommendations, all of which were based on excellent (> 90%) or good (81–90%) agreement. Recommendations include the indications for inotropes (septic and cardiogenic shock), the choice of drugs (dobutamine, not dopamine), the triggers (low cardiac output and clinical signs of hypoperfusion) and targets (adequate cardiac output) and stopping criteria (adverse effects and clinical improvement).

Conclusion

Inotrope use in critically ill patients is quite heterogeneous as self-reported by individual caregivers. Eleven strong recommendations on the indications, choice, triggers and targets for the use of inotropes are given by international experts. Future studies should focus on consistent indications for inotrope use and implementation into a guideline for circulatory shock that encompasses individualized targets and outcomes.

Mechanical assist devices for acute cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a state of critical end-organ hypoperfusion due to a primary cardiac disorder. For people with refractory CS despite maximal vasopressors, inotropic support and intra-aortic balloon pump, mortality approaches 100%. Mechanical assist devices provide mechanical circulatory support (MCS) which has the ability to maintain vital organ perfusion, to unload the failing ventricle thus reduce intracardiac filling pressures which reduces pulmonary congestion, myocardial wall stress and myocardial oxygen consumption. This has been hypothesised to allow time for myocardial recovery (bridge to recovery) or allow time to come to a decision as to whether the person is a candidate for a longer-term ventricular assist device (VAD) either as a bridge to heart transplantation or as a destination therapy with a long-term VAD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether mechanical assist devices improve survival in people with acute cardiogenic shock.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and Web of Science Core Collection in November 2019. In addition, we searched three trials registers in August 2019. We scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials on people with acute CS comparing mechanical assist devices with best current intensive care management, including intra-aortic balloon pump and inotropic support.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed data collection and analysis according to the published protocol. Primary outcomes were survival to discharge, 30 days, 1 year and secondary outcomes included, quality of life, major adverse cardiovascular events (30 days/end of follow-up), dialysis-dependent (30 days/end of follow-up), length of hospital stay and length of intensive care unit stay and major adverse events. We used the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the quality of a body of evidence as it relates to the studies which contribute data to the meta-analyses for the prespecified outcomes Summary statistics for the primary endpoints were risk ratios (RR), hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified five studies from 4534 original citations reviewed. Two studies included acute CS of all causes randomised to treatment using TandemHeart percutaneous VAD and three studies included people with CS secondary to acute myocardial infarction who were randomised to Impella CP or best medical management. Meta-analysis was performed only to assess the 30-day survival as there were insufficient data to perform any further meta-analyses. The results from the five studies with 162 participants showed mechanical assist devices may have little or no effect on 30-day survival (RR of 1.01 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35) but the evidence is very uncertain. Complications such as sepsis, thromboembolic phenomena, bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular events were not infrequent in both the MAD and control group across the studies, but these could not be pooled due to inconsistencies in adverse event definitions and reporting. We identified four randomised control trials assessing mechanical assist devices in acute CS that are currently ongoing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from this review of a benefit from MCS in improving survival for people with acute CS. Further use of the technology, risk stratification and optimising the use protocols have been highlighted as potential reasons for lack of benefit and are being addressed in the current ongoing clinical trials.

Catheter Ablation in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock and Refractory Ventricular Tachycardia

BACKGROUND

There is paucity of data regarding radiofrequency ablation for ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with cardiogenic shock and concomitant VT refractory to antiarrhythmic drugs on mechanical support.

METHODS

Patients undergoing VT ablation at our center were enrolled in a prospectively maintained registry and screened for the current study (2010-2017).

RESULTS

All 21 consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock and concomitant refractory ventricular arrhythmia undergoing bailout ablation due to inability to wean off mechanical support were included. Median age was 61 years, 86% were men, median left ventricular ejection fraction was 20%, 81% had ischemic cardiomyopathy, and PAINESD score was 18±5. The type of mechanical support in place before the procedure was intra-aortic balloon pump in 14 patients (67%), Impella CP in 2, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in 2, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and intra-aortic balloon pump in 2, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and Impella CP in 1. Endocardial voltage maps showed myocardial scar in 19 patients (90%). The clinical VTs were inducible in 13 patients (62%), whereas 6 patients had premature ventricular contraction-induced ventricular fibrillation/VT (29%), and VT could not be induced in 2 patients (9%). Activation mapping was possible in all 13 with inducible clinical VTs. Substrate modification was performed in 15 patients with scar (79%). After ablation and scar modification, the arrhythmia was noninducible in 19 patients (91%). Seventeen (81%) were eventually weaned off mechanical support successfully, but 6 (29%) died during the index admission from persistent cardiogenic shock. Patients who had ventricular arrhythmia and cardiogenic shock on presentation had a trend toward lower in-hospital mortality compared with those who presented with cardiogenic shock and later developed ventricular arrhythmia.

CONCLUSIONS

Bailout ablation for refractory ventricular arrhythmia in cardiogenic shock allowed successful weaning from mechanical support in a large proportion of patients. Mortality remains high, but the majority of patients were discharged home and survived beyond 1 year.

Extracorporeal life support to ventricular assist device: potential benefits of sternal-sparing approach

Background

Advancements in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology have improved long-term survival for properly selected patients with advanced heart failure. However, the subset of patients in critical cardiogenic shock remain difficult to treat with persistently high patient morbidity and mortality. The goal of this study is to describe our institutional experience utilizing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a bridge to LVAD for patients in cardiogenic shock comparing the less invasive complete sternal-sparing (CSS) surgical technique to median sternotomy.

Methods

Data was collected as a single center retrospective review of patients implanted with a continuous-flow LVAD directly off ECMO from 2012 to 2018. Patients were stratified by LVAD surgical technique. The primary outcome was survival to discharge. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, resource utilization and survival at 6-months.

Results

Of the 37 patients implanted directly off ECMO, 26 (70%) patients were implanted via median sternotomy and 11 (30%) patients by the CSS approach. Median time on ECMO support was 8 days (range, 2-29 days). Preoperative characteristics were similar between groups. Survival to discharge was 78% overall (73% vs. 91% CSS, P=0.391). The CSS cohort had fewer postoperative complications, including fewer transfusions (P=0.044) and trend towards less right ventricular (RV) failure (62% vs. 27% CSS, P=0.079). Both cohorts required similar median length of stay (LOS) in the intensive care unit (ICU) (11 vs. 12 days, P=0.695) and similar overall hospital LOS (34 vs. 22 days, P=0.242). Overall survival was 74% at six months (68% vs. 89% CSS, P=0.386).

Conclusions

VA ECMO can be used effectively as a bridge-to-LVAD for patients in cardiogenic shock. The less invasive CSS approach demonstrates potential advantages to median sternotomy. Further study is needed to better understand the benefits of less invasive surgical techniques.

Primary intra-aortic balloon support versus inotropes for decompensated heart failure and low output: a randomised trial

AIMS

The haemodynamic effects of primary implantation of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) versus inotropes in decompensated heart failure and low output (DHF-LO), but without an acute coronary syndrome, have not been investigated. We therefore aimed to investigate the effect of primary IABP implantation as compared to inotropes on haemodynamics in DHF-LO with no acute ischaemia.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients (n=32) with DHF-LO despite IV diuretics were randomised to primary 50 mL IABP or inotropes (INO: enoximone or dobutamine). The primary endpoint was the improvement of organ perfusion assessed by ∆ mixed-venous oxygen saturation (SvO2) at 3 hours; secondary endpoints included ∆ cardiac power output (CPO), NT-proBNP proportional change, cumulative fluid balance and ∆ dyspnoea severity score, all at 48 hours. Data are presented as median (IQR). Patients were 60 (48-69) years old and 72% were male. Baseline SvO2 was 44 (39-53)%. ∆SvO2 was higher in the IABP group (+17 [+9; +24] vs. +5 [+2; +9]%, p<0.05). IABP patients had a higher ∆CPO, a greater relative reduction in NT-proBNP, a more negative cumulative fluid balance, and a greater reduction in dyspnoea severity score. There were no IABP-related serious adverse events (SAEs). Thirty-day mortality was 23% (IABP) vs. 44% (INO).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary circulatory support by IABP showed a significant increase in improved organ perfusion assessed by SvO2.

Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock in the Critically Ill

Patients requiring mechanical circulatory support (MCS) constitute a heterogeneous group whose needs have guided the development of a broad range of MCS devices. Appropriate patient and device selection are important for maximizing the potential benefit of these therapies. Currently available devices can be deployed percutaneously or surgically implanted. They can also be configured for left, right, or biventricular support and remain in place for hours to years, offering varying levels of flow. In the critical care setting, patients with the highest acuity have the worst outcomes when receiving an implantable long-term ventricular assist device (VAD); therefore, shorter-term devices should be considered for stabilization and optimization prior to implantation of a long-term device. In this focused review for the critical care clinician, we discuss important considerations for identifying VAD candidates, identifying the range of devices available to support them, bridging strategies that may improve outcomes for patients who are critically ill, and identifying areas of ongoing research.