Clinical and regulatory landscape for cardiogenic shock: A report from the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium ThinkTank on cardiogenic shock

Outcomes of patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock treated with culprit vessel-only versus multivessel primary PCI

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Multivessel primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is still often used in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS). The study aimed to compare the characteristics and prognosis of patients with CS-STEMI and multivessel coronary disease (MVD) treated with culprit vessel-only pPCI or multivessel-pPCI during the initial procedure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From 2016 to 2020, 23,703 primary PCI patients with STEMI were included in a national all-comers registry of cardiovascular interventions. Of them, 1,213 (5.1%) patients had CS and MVD at admission to the hospital. Initially, 921 (75.9%) patients were treated with culprit vessel (CV)-pPCI and 292 (24.1%) with multivessel (MV)-pPCI.

RESULTS

Patients with 3-vessel disease and left main disease had a higher probability of being treated with MV-pPCI than patients with 2-vessel disease and patients without left main disease (28.5% vs. 18.6%; p < 0.001 and 37.7% vs. 20.6%; p < 0.001). Intra-aortic balloon pump, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and other mechanical circulatory support systems were more often used in patients with MV-pPCI. Thirty (30)-day and 1-year all-cause mortality rates were similar in the CV-pPCI and MV-pPCI groups (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77 to 1.32; p = 0.937 and 1.1; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.44; p = 0.477). The presence of 3-vessel disease and the use of ECMO were the strongest adjusted predictors of 30-day and 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data from an extensive all-comers registry suggests that selective use of MV-pPCI does not increase the all-cause mortality rate in patients with CS-STEMI and MVD compared to CV-pPCI.

Standardized Definitions for Cardiogenic Shock Research and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: Scientific Expert Panel From the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC)

The Shock Academic Research Consortium is a multi-stakeholder group, including representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies, industry, and payers, convened to develop pragmatic consensus definitions useful for the evaluation of clinical trials enrolling patients with cardiogenic shock, including trials evaluating mechanical circulatory support devices. Several in-person and virtual meetings were convened between 2020 and 2022 to discuss the need for developing the standardized definitions required for evaluation of mechanical circulatory support devices in clinical trials for cardiogenic shock patients. The expert panel identified key concepts and topics by performing literature reviews, including previous clinical trials, while recognizing current challenges and the need to advance evidence-based practice and statistical analysis to support future clinical trials. For each category, a lead (primary) author was assigned to perform a literature search and draft a proposed definition, which was presented to the subgroup. These definitions were further modified after feedback from the expert panel meetings until a consensus was reached. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel recommendations focused on outcome definitions, including efficacy and safety.

Trends in Cardiogenic Shock-Related Mortality in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction in the United States, 1999 to 2019

Data on mortality trends in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with cardiogenic shock (CS) are scant. This study aimed to assess the trends in CS-AMI-related mortality in United States (US) subjects over the latest 21 years. Mortality data of US subjects with AMI listed as the underlying cause of death and CS as contributing cause were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER (Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research) dataset from January 1999 to December 2019. CS-AMI-related age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) per 100,000 US population were stratified by gender, race and ethnicity, geographic areas, and urbanicity. Nationwide annual trends were assessed as annual percent change (APC) and average APC with relative 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Between 1999 and 2019, CS-AMI was listed as the underlying cause of death in 209,642 patients, (AAMR of 3.01 per 100,000 people [95% CI 2.99 to 3.02]). AAMR from CS-AMI remained stable from 1999 to 2007 (APC -0.2%, [95% CI -2.0 to 0.5], p = 0.22) and then significantly increased (APC 3.1% [95% CI 2.6 to 3.6], p <0.0001), especially in male patients. Starting in 2009, the AAMR increase was more pronounced in those <65 years, Black Americans, and residents of rural areas. The higher AAMRs were clustered in the South (average APC 4.5%, [95% CI 4.4 to 4.6]) of the country. In conclusion, CS-AMI-related mortality in US patients increased from 2009 to 2019. Targeted health policy measures are needed to address the rising burden of CS-AMI in US subjects.

Time for a rethink in cardiogenic shock: the shock to survival framework document

Cardiogenic shock remains a time-critical, complex syndrome that continues to present challenges to clinicians and healthcare systems. Despite advances in the fields of cardiovascular and critical care medicine, mortality remains high. This article summarises the recent shock to survival document, which outlined the current and ideal future state of cardiogenic shock care nationally to improve patient outcomes. Shock to survival emphasises the need for education and training in the early recognition of the hypoperfusion that is pathognomomic of cardiogenic shock. Improved provision of focused cardiac ultrasound is essential to confirm a cardiac cause. Early identification of the patient with cardiogenic shock should be supported by access to defined pathways of care, including specialist shock centres and multiprofessional teams with domain expertise and the capability to manage the myriad of causative aetiologies. Given the absence of high-quality data to inform practice nationally, robust datasets are an unmet need to inform best practice, guide design of clinical services and pathways and drive innovation through research and clinical trials.

Treatment Intensity for the Management of Cardiogenic Shock: Comparison Between STEMI and Non-STEMI

Background

Cardiogenic shock is a leading cause of mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

Objectives

The authors sought to compare clinical characteristics, hospital trajectory, and drug and device use between patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS) and those without (non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock [NSTEMI-CS]).

Methods

We analyzed data from 1,110 adult admissions with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) across 17 centers within Cardiogenic Shock Working Group. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality.

Results

Our study included 1,110 patients with AMI-CS, of which 731 (65.8%) had STEMI-CS and 379 (34.2%) had NSTEMI-CS. Most patients were male (STEMI-CS: 71.6%, NSTEMI-CS: 66.5%) and White (STEMI-CS: 53.8%, NSTEMI-CS: 64.1%). In-hospital mortality was 41% and was similar among patients with STEMI-CS and NSTEMI-CS (43% vs 39%, P = 0.23). Patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest had higher in-hospital mortality in patients with NSTEMI-CS (63% vs 36%, P = 0.006) as compared to patients with STEMI-CS (52% vs 41%, P = 0.16). Similar results were observed for in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with STEMI-CS (63% vs 33%, P < 0.001) and NSTEMI-CS (60% vs 32%, P < 0.001). Only 27% of patients with STEMI-CS and 12% of NSTEMI-CS received both a drug and temporary mechanical circulatory support device during the first 24 hours, which increased to 78% and 61%, respectively, throughout the course of the hospitalization (P < 0.001 for both).

Conclusions

Despite increasing use of inotropic and vasoactive support and mechanical circulatory support throughout the hospitalization, both patients with STEMI-CS and NSTEMI-CS remain at increased risk for in-hospital mortality. Randomized controls trials are needed to elucidate whether timing and sequence of escalation of support improves outcomes in patients with AMI-CS.

Reflecting on the advancements of HFrEF therapies over the last two decades and predicting what is yet to come

What was once considered a topic best avoided, managing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has become the focus of many drug and device therapies. While the four pillars of guideline-directed medical therapies have successfully reduced heart failure hospitalizations, and some have even impacted cardiovascular mortality in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), patient-reported outcomes have emerged as important endpoints that merit greater emphasis in future studies. The prospect of an oral inotrope seems more probable now as targets for drug therapies have moved from neurohormonal modulation to intracellular mechanisms and direct cardiac myosin stimulation. While we have come a long way in safely providing durable mechanical circulatory support to patients with advanced HFrEF, several percutaneous device therapies have emerged, and many are under investigation. Biomarkers have shown promise in not only improving our ability to diagnose incident heart failure but also our potential to implicate specific pathophysiological pathways. The once-forgotten concept of discordance between pressure and volume, the forgotten splanchnic venous and lymphatic compartments, have all emerged as promising targets for diagnosing and treating heart failure in the not-so-distant future. The increase in heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (CS) has revived interest in defining optimal perfusion targets and designing RCTs in CS. Rapid developments in remote monitoring, telemedicine, and artificial intelligence promise to change the face of heart failure care. In this state-of-the-art review, we reminisce about the past, highlight the present, and predict what might be the future of HFrEF therapies.

Position Statement on Vascular Access Safety for Percutaneous Devices in AMI Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock

In the United States, the frequency of using percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock is increasing. These devices require large-bore vascular access to provide left, right, or biventricular cardiac support, frequently under urgent/emergent circumstances. Significant technical and logistical variability exists in device insertion, care, and removal in the cardiac catheterization laboratory and in the cardiac intensive care unit. This variability in practice may contribute to adverse outcomes observed in centers that receive patients with cardiogenic shock, who are at higher risk for circulatory insufficiency, venous stasis, bleeding, and arterial hypoperfusion. In this position statement, we aim to: 1) describe the public health impact of bleeding and vascular complications in cardiogenic shock; 2) highlight knowledge gaps for vascular safety and provide a roadmap for a regulatory perspective necessary for advancing the field; 3) propose a minimum core set of process elements, or "vascular safety bundle"; and 4) develop a possible study design for a pragmatic trial platform to evaluate which structured approach to vascular access drives most benefit and prevents vascular and bleeding complications in practice.

A Standardized and Regionalized Network of Care for Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

The benefits of standardized care for cardiogenic shock (CS) across regional care networks are poorly understood.

OBJECTIVES

The authors compared the management and outcomes of CS patients initially presenting to hub versus spoke hospitals within a regional care network.

METHODS

The authors stratified consecutive patients enrolled in their CS registry (January 2017 to December 2019) by presentation to a spoke versus the hub hospital. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included bleeding, stroke, or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events.

RESULTS

Of 520 CS patients, 286 (55%) initially presented to 34 spoke hospitals. No difference in mean age (62 years vs 61 years; P = 0.38), sex (25% vs 32% women; P = 0.10), and race (54% vs 52% white; P = 0.82) between spoke and hub patients was noted. Spoke patients more often presented with acute myocardial infarction (50% vs 32%; P < 0.01), received vasopressors (74% vs 66%; P = 0.04), and intra-aortic balloon pumps (88% vs 37%; P < 0.01). Hub patients were more often supported with percutaneous ventricular assist devices (44% vs 11%; P < 0.01) and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (13% vs 0%; P < 0.01). Initial presentation to a spoke was not associated with increased risk-adjusted 30-day mortality (adjusted OR: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.49-1.55]; P = 0.64), bleeding (adjusted OR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.49-1.62]; P = 0.70), stroke (adjusted OR: 0.74 [95% CI: 0.31-1.75]; P = 0.49), or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (adjusted OR 0.83 [95% CI: 0.50-1.35]; P = 0.44).

CONCLUSIONS

Spoke and hub patients experienced similar short-term outcomes within a regionalized CS network. The optimal strategy to promote standardized care and improved outcomes across regional CS networks merits further investigation.

Criteria for Defining Stages of Cardiogenic Shock Severity

BACKGROUND

Risk-stratifying patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) is a major unmet need. The recently proposed Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) staging system for CS severity lacks uniform criteria defining each stage.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to test parameters that define SCAI stages and explore their utility as predictors of in-hospital mortality in CS.

METHODS

The CS Working Group registry includes patients from 17 hospitals enrolled between 2016 and 2021 and was used to define clinical profiles for CS. We selected parameters of hypotension and hypoperfusion and treatment intensity, confirmed their association with mortality, then defined formal criteria for each stage and tested the association between both baseline and maximum Stage and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 3,455 patients, CS was caused by heart failure (52%) or myocardial infarction (32%). Mortality was 35% for the total cohort and higher among patients with myocardial infarction, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and treatment with increasing numbers of drugs and devices. Systolic blood pressure, lactate level, alanine transaminase level, and systemic pH were significantly associated with mortality and used to define each stage. Using these criteria, baseline and maximum stages were significantly associated with mortality (n = 1,890). Lower baseline stage was associated with a higher incidence of stage escalation and a shorter duration of time to reach maximum stage.

CONCLUSIONS

We report a novel approach to define SCAI stages and identify a significant association between baseline and maximum stage and mortality. This approach may improve clinical application of the staging system and provides new insight into the trajectory of hospitalized CS patients. (Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Registry [CSWG]; NCT04682483).

Sex Differences in Management and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients Presenting With Cardiogenic Shock

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine the sex differences in the risk profile, management, and outcomes among patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS).

BACKGROUND

Contemporary clinical data regarding sex differences in the management and outcomes of AMI patients presenting with CS are scarce.

METHODS

Patients admitted with AMI-CS from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Chest Pain-MI registry between October 2008 to December 2017 were included. Sex differences in baseline characteristics, in-hospital management, and outcomes were compared. Patients ≥65 years of age with available linkage data to Medicare claims were included in the analysis of 1-year outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for patient and hospital-related covariates were used to estimate sex-specific differences in in-hospital and 1-year outcomes, respectively.

RESULTS

Among 17,195 patients presenting with AMI-CS, 37.3% were women. Women were older, had a higher prevalence of comorbidities, and had worse renal function at presentation. Women were less likely to receive guideline-directed medical therapies within 24 hours and at discharge, undergo diagnostic angiography (85.0% vs 91.1%), or receive mechanical circulatory support (25.4% vs 33.8%). Women had higher risks of in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.02-1.19) and major bleeding (adjusted OR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.12-1.34). For patients ≥65 years of age, women did not have a higher risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.88-1.09) and mortality or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.91-1.12) at 1 year compared with men.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large nationwide analysis of patients with AMI-CS, women were less likely to receive guideline recommended care, including revascularization, and had worse in-hospital outcomes than men. At 1 year, there were no sex differences in the risk of mortality. Efforts are needed to address sex disparities in the initial care of AMI-CS patients.

Advocacy and Legislation for Regionalization Practices in the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock: The Time Is Now

Cardiogenic shock is a complex hemodynamic state that, despite improvements in care, often remains challenging to treat and confers a high mortality rate. Timely application of advanced strategies, including advanced hemodynamic management and mechanical circulatory support, is of the utmost importance for this critically ill patient population. Based on data and historic experiences with similar life-threatening conditions, a national system in the US of regionalized, structured care for patients with cardiogenic shock has the potential to improve outcomes and save lives. To enact this, national and state leaders, as well as federal regulatory bodies, physician thought leaders, industry representatives, and national organizations, must collaborate and advocate for a clear, structured cardiac shock center network with a tiered model for delivery of care for the sickest population of cardiac patients.

Comparative Analysis of Patient Characteristics in Cardiogenic Shock Studies: Differences Between Trials and Registries

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate the differences in cardiogenic shock patient characteristics in trial patients and real-life patients.

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a leading cause of mortality in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, the enrollment of patients into clinical trials is challenging and may not be representative of real-world patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of studies in patients presenting with AMI-related CS and compared patient characteristics of those enrolled into randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with those in registries.

RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs (n = 2,154) and 12 registries (n = 133,617). RCTs included more men (73% vs 67.7%, P < 0.001) compared with registries. Patients enrolled in RCTs had fewer comorbidities, including less hypertension (61.6% vs 65.9%, P < 0.001), dyslipidemia (36.4% vs 53.6%, P < 0.001), a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack (7.1% vs 10.7%, P < 0.001), and prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (5.4% vs 7.5%, P < 0.001). Patients enrolled in RCTs also had lower lactate levels (4.7 ± 2.3 mmol/L vs 5.9 ± 1.9 mmol/L, P < 0.001) and higher mean arterial pressure (73.0 ± 8.8 mm Hg vs 62.5 ± 12.2 mm Hg, P < 0.001). Percutaneous coronary intervention (97.5% vs 58.4%, P < 0.001) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (11.6% vs 3.4%, P < 0.001) were used more often in RCTs. The in-hospital mortality (23.9% vs 38.4%, P < 0.001) and 30-day mortality (39.9% vs 45.9%, P < 0.001) were lower in RCT patients.

CONCLUSIONS

RCTs in AMI-related CS tend to enroll fewer women and lower-risk patients compared with registries. Patients enrolled in RCTs are more likely to receive aggressive treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and have lower in-hospital and 30-day mortality.

Cardiogenic Shock Management and Research: Past, Present, and Future Outlook

Although great strides have been made in the pathophysiological understanding, diagnosis and management of cardiogenic shock (CS), morbidity and mortality in patients presenting with the condition remain high. Acute MI is the commonest cause of CS; consequently, most existing literature concerns MI-associated CS. However, there are many more phenotypes of patients with acute heart failure. Medical treatment and mechanical circulatory support are well-established therapeutic options, but evidence for many current treatment regimens is limited. The issue is further complicated by the fact that implementing adequately powered, randomized controlled trials are challenging for many reasons. In this review, the authors discuss the history, landmark trials, current topics of medical therapy and mechanical circulatory support regimens, and future perspectives of CS management.

Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Review

IMPORTANCE

Cardiogenic shock affects between 40 000 and 50 000 people in the US per year and is the leading cause of in-hospital mortality following acute myocardial infarction.

OBSERVATIONS

Thirty-day mortality for patients with cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction is approximately 40%, and 1-year mortality approaches 50%. Immediate revascularization of the infarct-related coronary artery remains the only treatment for cardiogenic shock associated with acute myocardial infarction supported by randomized clinical trials. The Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategies with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock (CULPRIT-SHOCK) clinical trial demonstrated a reduction in the primary outcome of 30-day death or kidney replacement therapy; 158 of 344 patients (45.9%) in the culprit lesion revascularization-only group compared with 189 of 341 patients (55.4%) in the multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention group (relative risk, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.71-0.96]; P = .01). Despite a lack of randomized trials demonstrating benefit, percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices are frequently used to manage cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Cardiogenic shock occurs in up to 10% of patients immediately following acute myocardial infarction and is associated with mortality rates of nearly 40% at 30 days and 50% at 1 year. Current evidence and clinical practice guidelines support immediate revascularization of the infarct-related coronary artery as the primary therapy for cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction.

Cardiogenic Shock: Protocols, Teams, Centers, and Networks

The mortality of cardiogenic shock (CS) remains unacceptably high. Delays in the recognition of CS and access to disease-modifying or hemodynamically stabilizing interventions likely contribute to poor outcomes. In parallel to successful initiatives in other disease states, such as acute ST-elevation MI and major trauma, institutions are increasingly advocating the use of a multidisciplinary ‘shock team’ approach to CS management. A volume–outcome relationship exists in CS, as with many other acute cardiovascular conditions, and the emergence of ‘shock hubs’ as experienced facilities with an interest in improving CS outcomes through a hub-and-spoke ‘shock network’ approach provides another opportunity to deliver improved CS care as widely and equitably as possible. This narrative review outlines improvements from a networked approach to care, discusses a team-based and protocolized approach to CS management, reviews the available evidence and discusses the potential benefits, challenges, and opportunities of such systems of care.

Systems of Care in Cardiogenic Shock

Outcomes for cardiogenic shock (CS) patients remain relatively poor despite significant advancements in primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and temporary circulatory support (TCS) technologies. Mortality from CS shows great disparities that seem to reflect large variations in access to care and physician practice patterns. Recent reports of different models to standardize care in CS have shown considerable potential at improving outcomes. The creation of regional, integrated, 3-tiered systems, would facilitate standardized interventions and equitable access to care. Multidisciplinary CS teams at Level I centers would direct care in a hub-and-spoke model through jointly developed protocols and real-time shared decision making. Levels II and III centers would provide early access to life-saving therapies and safe transfer to designated hub centers. In regions with large geographical distances, the implementation of telemedicine-cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) care can be an important resource for the creation of effective systems of care.

Variability in reporting of key outcome predictors in acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock trials

BACKGROUND

Among acute myocardial infarction patients with cardiogenic shock (AMICS), a number of key variables predict mortality, including cardiac arrest (CA) and shock classification as proposed by Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI). Given this prognostic importance, we examined the frequency of reporting of high risk variables in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AMICS patients.

METHODS

We identified 15 RCTs enrolling 2,500 AMICS patients and then reviewed rates of CA, baseline neurologic status, right heart catheterization data, lactate levels, inotrope and vasopressor requirement, hypothermia, mechanical ventilation, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), mechanical circulatory support, and specific cause of death based on the primary manuscript and Data in S1.

RESULTS

A total of 2,500 AMICS patients have been enrolled in 15 clinical trials over 21 years with only four trials enrolling >80 patients. The reporting frequency and range for key prognostic factors was: neurologic status (0% reported), hypothermia (28% reported, prevalence 33-75%), specific cause of death (33% reported), cardiac index and wedge pressure (47% reported, range 1.6-2.3 L min^-1 m^-2 and 15-24 mmHg), lactate (60% reported, range 4-7.7 mmol/L), LVEF (73% reported, range 25-45%), CA (80% reported, prevalence 0-92%), MCS (80% reported, prevalence 13-100%), and mechanical ventilation (93% reported, prevalence 35-100%). This variability was reflected in the 30-day mortality which ranged from 20-73%.

CONCLUSIONS

In a comprehensive review of seminal RCTs in AMICS, important predictors of outcome were frequently not reported. Future efforts to standardize CS trial data collection and reporting may allow for better assessment of novel therapies for AMICS.

Outcomes of Hospitalizations for Cardiogenic Shock at Left Ventricular Assist Device Versus Non-Left Ventricular Assist Device Centers

Background Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex syndrome associated with high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, many US hospitals have formed multidisciplinary shock teams capable of rapid diagnosis and triage. Because of preexisting collaborative systems of care, hospitals with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) programs may also represent "centers of excellence" for CS care. However, the outcomes of patients with CS at LVAD centers have not been previously evaluated. Methods and Results Patients with CS were identified in the 2012 to 2014 National Inpatient Sample. Clinical characteristics, revascularization rates, and use of mechanical circulatory support were analyzed in LVAD versus non-LVAD centers. The association between hospital type and in-hospital mortality was examined using multivariable logistic regression models. Of 272 075 hospitalizations, 26.0% were in LVAD centers. CS attributable to causes other than acute myocardial infarction represented most cases. In-hospital mortality was lower in LVAD centers (38.9% versus 43.3%; P<0.001). In multivariable analysis, the odds of mortality remained significantly lower for hospitalizations in LVAD centers (odds ratio, 0.89; P<0.001). In patients with CS secondary to acute myocardial infarction, revascularization rates were similar between LVAD and non-LVAD centers. The use of intra-aortic balloon pump (18.7% versus 18.8%) and Impella/TandemHeart (2.6% versus 1.9%) was similar between hospital types, whereas extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was used more frequently in LVAD centers (4.3% versus 0.2%; P<0.001). Conclusions Risk-adjusted mortality was lower in patients with CS who were hospitalized at LVAD centers. These centers likely represent specialized, shock team capable institutions across the country that may be best suited to manage patients with CS.

A Standardized and Comprehensive Approach to the Management of Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock is a hemodynamically complex syndrome characterized by a low cardiac output that often culminates in multiorgan system failure and death. Despite recent advances, clinical outcomes remain poor, with mortality rates exceeding 40%. In the absence of adequately powered randomized controlled trials to guide therapy, best practices for shock management remain nonuniform. Emerging data from North American registries, however, support the use of standardized protocols focused on rapid diagnosis, early intervention, ongoing hemodynamic assessment, and multidisciplinary longitudinal care. In this review, the authors examine the pathophysiology and phenotypes of cardiogenic shock, benefits and limitations of current therapies, and they propose a standardized and team-based treatment algorithm. Lastly, they discuss future research opportunities to address current gaps in clinical knowledge.

Currently Available Options for Mechanical Circulatory Support for the Management of Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex condition with a high risk for morbidity and mortality. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices were developed to support patients with CS in cases refractory to treatment with vasoactive medications. Current devices include intra-aortic balloon pumps, intravascular microaxial pumps, percutaneous LVAD, percutaneous RVAD, and VA ECMO. Data from limited observational studies and clinical trials show a clear difference in the level of hemodynamic support offered by each device. However, at this point, there are insufficient clinical trial data to guide MCS selection and, until ongoing clinical trials are completed, use of the right device for the right patient depends largely on clinical judgment.