Cardiogenic shock complicating non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: An 18-year study

Impact of Inpatient Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Volume on 30-Day Readmissions After Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on volume-outcome relationships in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with cardiogenic shock (CS).

OBJECTIVES

In this study, the authors sought to evaluate the association between hospital percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) volume and readmission after AMI-CS.

METHODS

Adult AMI-CS patients were identified from the Nationwide Readmissions Database for 2016-2019 and were categorized into hospital quartiles (Q1 lowest volume to Q4 highest) based on annual inpatient PCI volume. Outcomes of interest included 30-day all-cause, cardiac, noncardiac, and heart-failure (HF) readmissions.

RESULTS

There were 49,558 AMI-CS admissions at 3,954 PCI-performing hospitals. Median annual PCI volume was 174 (Q1-Q3: 70-316). Patients treated at Q1 hospitals were on average older, female, and with higher comorbidity burden. Patients at Q4 hospitals had higher rates of noncardiac organ dysfunction, complications, and use of cardiac support therapies. Overall, 30-day readmission rate was 18.5% (n = 9,179), of which cardiac, noncardiac, and HF readmissions constituted 56.2%, 43.8%, and 25.8%, respectively. From Q1 to Q4, there were no differences in 30-day all-cause (17.6%, 18.4%, 18.2%, 18.7%; P = 0.55), cardiac (10.9%, 11.0%, 10.6%, 10.2%; P = 0.29), and HF (5.0%, 4.8%, 4.8%, 4.8%; P = 0.99) readmissions. Noncardiac readmissions were noted more commonly in higher quartiles (6.7%, 7.4%, 7.7%, 8.5%; P = 0.001) but was not significant after multivariable adjustment. No relationship was noted between hospital PCI volume as a continuous variable and readmissions.

CONCLUSIONS

In AMI-CS, there was no association between hospital annual PCI volume and 30-day readmissions despite higher acuity in the higher volume PCI centers suggestive of better care pathways for CS at higher volume centers.

Acute coronary occlusion with vs. without ST elevation: impact on procedural outcomes and long-term all-cause mortality

BACKGROUND

Acute total occlusion (ATO) is diagnosed in a substantial proportion of patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). We compared procedural outcomes and long-term mortality in patients with STEMI with NSTEMI with vs. without ATO.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We included patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing invasive coronary angiography between 2004 and 2019 at our centre. Acute total occlusion was defined as thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 0-1 flow in the infarct-related artery or TIMI 2-3 flow with highly elevated peak troponin (>100-folds the upper reference limit). Association between presentation and long-term mortality was evaluated using multivariable adjusted Cox regression analysis. From 2269 AMI patients (mean age 66 ± 13.2 years, 74% male), 664 patients with STEMI and 1605 patients with NSTEMI (471 [29.3%] with ATO) were included. ATO(+)NSTEMI patients had a higher frequency of cardiogenic shock and no reflow than ATO(-)NSTEMI with similar rates compared with STEMI patients (cardiogenic shock: 2.76 vs. 0.27 vs. 2.86%, P < 0.0001, P = 1; no reflow: 4.03 vs. 0.18 vs. 3.17%, P < 0.0001, P = 0.54). ATO(+)NSTEMI and STEMI were associated with 60 and 55% increased incident mortality, respectively, as compared with ATO(-)NSTEMI (ATO(+)NSTEMI: 1.60 [1.27-2.02], P < 0.0001, STEMI: 1.55 [1.24-1.94], P < 0.0001). Likewise, left ventricular ejection fraction (48.5 ± 12.7 vs. 49.1±11 vs. 50.6 ± 11.8%, P = 0.5, P = 0.018) and global longitudinal strain (-15.2 ± -5.74 vs. -15.5 ± -4.84 vs. -16.3 ± -5.30%, P = 0.48, P = 0.016) in ATO(+)NSTEMI were comparable to STEMI but significantly worse than in ATO(-)NSTEMI.

CONCLUSION

Non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with ATO have unfavourable procedural outcomes, resulting in increased long-term mortality, resembling STEMI. Our findings suggest that the occlusion perspective provides a more appropriate classification of AMI than differentiation into STEMI vs. NSTEMI.

Clinical Characteristics, Management, and Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock: Insights From a High-Volume Italian Cardiac Intensive Care Unit

ABSTRACT

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical characteristics, management, and complication rate of patients with CS admitted to a high-volume hospital in Italy. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical, echocardiographic, and laboratory data, therapeutic management, and outcomes of patients with CS admitted to the Policlinico Gemelli (Rome) between January 1, 2020, and January 1, 2023. We included 96 patients [median age 71 years, interquartile range 60-79; 65 (68%) males], of whom 49 patients (51%) presented CS secondary to acute myocardial infarction and 60 (63%) with a de novo presentation of CS. Dobutamine was the most frequently used inotrope and noradrenaline the most frequently used vasopressor (adopted in 56% and 82% of cases, respectively). Forty-five (47%) patients died during the hospitalization. Nonsurvivors were older and had a higher inflammatory burden at admission, elevated lactate levels, a greater increase in lactate levels, higher left ventricular filling pressures, and worse right ventricular function. C-reactive protein levels [odds ratio (OR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.00-1.04), P = 0.027], lactate levels at admission (OR 3.49, 95% CI, 1.59-7.63, P = 0.02), and increase in lactate levels (OR 2.8, 95% CI, 1.37-5.75, P = 0.005) were independent predictors of in-hospital all-cause death. Our data contribute to the assessment of the regional variations in the management and outcomes of patients with CS. We observed a high mortality and complication rate. Lactate acidosis and C-reactive protein measured at admission may help in identifying patients at higher risk of adverse in-hospital outcomes.

Effectiveness and safety of non-invasive ventilation in the management of cardiogenic shock

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Cardiogenic shock (CS) has long been considered a contraindication for the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV). The main objective of this study was to analyze the effectiveness, measured as NIV success, in patients with respiratory failure due to CS. As secondary objective, we studied risk factors for NIV failure and compared the outcome of patients treated with NIV versus invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV).

METHODS

Retrospective study on a prospective database, over a period of 25 years, of all consecutively patients admitted to an intensive care unit, with a diagnosis of CS and treated with NIV. A comparison was made between patients on NIV and patients on IMV using propensity score matching analysis.

RESULTS

Three hundred patients were included, mean age 73.8 years, mean SAPS II 49. The main cause of CS was acute myocardial infarction (AMI): 164 (54.7%). NIV failure occurred in 153 (51%) cases. Independent factors for NIV failure included D/E stages of CS, AMI, NIV related complications, and being transferred from the ward. In the propensity analysis, hospital mortality (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.09-2.63) and 1 year mortality (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.04-2.51) was higher in IMV. Mortality was lower with NIV (vs. EIT-IMV) in C stage (10.1% vs. 32.9%; p<0.001) but did not differ in D stage or E stage.

CONCLUSIONS

NIV seems to be relatively effective and safe in the treatment of early-stage CS.

Need for a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative-Promoting a Team-Based Model of Care to Improve Outcomes and Identify Best Practices

Cardiogenic shock continues to carry a high mortality rate despite contemporary care, with no breakthrough therapies shown to improve survival over the past few decades. It is a time-sensitive condition that commonly results in cardiovascular complications and multisystem organ failure, necessitating multidisciplinary expertise. Managing patients with cardiogenic shock remains challenging even in well-resourced settings, and an important subgroup of patients may require cardiac replacement therapy. As a result, the idea of leveraging the collective cognitive and procedural proficiencies of multiple providers in a collaborative, team-based approach to care (the "shock team") has been advocated by professional societies and implemented at select high-volume clinical centers. A slowly maturing evidence base has suggested that cardiogenic shock teams may improve patient outcomes. Although several registries exist that are beginning to inform care, particularly around therapeutic strategies of pharmacologic and mechanical circulatory support, none of these are currently focused on the shock team approach, multispecialty partnership, education, or process improvement. We propose the creation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative-akin to the successful Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Consortium-with a goal to promote sharing of care protocols, education of stakeholders, and discovery of how process and performance may influence patient outcomes, quality, resource consumption, and costs of care.

Left Ventricular Unloading With Impella Versus IABP in Patients With VA-ECMO: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) use for circulatory support in cardiogenic shock results in increased left ventricular (LV) afterload. The use of concomitant Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) have been proposed as adjunct devices for LV unloading. The authors sought to compare head-to-head efficacy and safety outcomes between the 2 LV unloading strategies. We conducted a search of Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to identify studies comparing the use of Impella to IABP in patients on VA-ECMO. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included transition to durable LV assist devices/cardiac transplantation, stroke, limb ischemia, need for continuous renal replacement therapy, major bleeding, and hemolysis. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval and heterogeneity statistic I2 were calculated using a random-effects model. A total of 7 observational studies with 698 patients were included. Patients on VA-ECMO unloaded with Impella vs IABP had similar risk of short-term all-cause mortality, defined as either 30-day or in-hospital mortality- 60.8% vs 64.9% (RR 0.93 [0.71 to 1.21], I2 = 71%). No significant difference was observed in transition to durable LV assist devices/cardiac transplantation, continuous renal replacement therapy initiation, stroke, or limb ischemia between the 2 strategies. However, the use of VA-ECMO with Impella was associated with increased risk of major bleeding (57.2% vs 39.7%) (RR 1.66 [1.12 to 2.44], I2 = 82%) and hemolysis (31% vs 7%) (RR 4.61 [1.24 to 17.17], I2 = 66%) compared with VA-ECMO, along with IABP. In conclusion, in patients requiring VA-ECMO for circulatory support, the concomitant use of Impella or IABP had comparable short-term mortality. However, Impella use was associated with increased risk of major bleeding and hemolysis.

Escalation strategies, management, and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock patients receiving percutaneous left ventricular support

BACKGROUND

There are limited national-level data on the contemporary practices of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) use in acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS).

METHODS

We utilized the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-National/Nationwide Inpatient Sample data (2005-2017) to identify adult admissions (>18 years) with AMI-CS. MCS devices were classified as intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVAD), or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We evaluated trends in the initial device used (IABP alone, pLVAD alone or ≥2 MCS devices), device escalation, bridging to durable LVAD/heart transplantation, and predictors of in-hospital mortality and device escalation.

RESULTS

Among 327,283 AMI-CS admissions, 131,435 (40.2%) had an MCS device placed with available information on timing of placement. IABP, pLVAD, and ≥2 MCS devices were used as initial device in 120,928 (92.0%), 8202 (6.2%), and 2305 (1.7%) admissions, respectively. Most admissions were maintained on the initial MCS device with 1%-1.5% being escalated (IABP to pLVAD/ECMO, pLVAD to ECMO). Urban, medium, and large-sized hospitals and acute multiorgan failure were significant independent predictors of MCS escalation. In admissions receiving MCS, escalation of MCS device was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 1.56, 95% confidence interval:  1.38-1.75; p < 0.001). Admissions receiving durable LVAD/heart transplantation increased over time in those initiated on pLVAD and ≥2 MCS devices, resulting in lower in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In this 13-year study, escalation of MCS in AMI-CS was associated with higher in-hospital mortality suggestive of higher acuity of illness. The increase in number of durable LVAD/heart transplantations alludes to the role of MCS as successful bridge strategies.

Pathophysiology and Management of Heart Failure in the Elderly

The population of elderly adults is increasing globally. It has been projected that the population of adults aged 65 years will increase by approximately 80% by 2050 in the United States. Similarly, the elderly population is rising in other countries; a notable example being Japan where approximately 30% of the population are aged above 65 years. The pathophysiology and management of heart failure (HF) in this age group tend to have more intricacies than in younger age groups owing to the presence of multiple comorbidities. The normal aging biology includes progressive disruption at cellular and genetic levels and changes in molecular signaling and mechanical activities that contribute to myocardial abnormalities. Older adults with HF secondary to ischemic or valvular heart disease may benefit from surgical therapy, valve replacement or repair for valvular heart disease and coronary artery bypass grafting for coronary artery disease. While referring these patients for surgery, patient and family expectations and life expectations should be taken into account. In this review, we will cover the pathophysiology and the management of HF in the elderly, specifically discussing important geriatric domains such as frailty, cognitive impairment, delirium, polypharmacy, and multimorbidity.