What Is the Role of Medical Therapy in Cardiogenic Shock in the Era of Mechanical Circulatory Support?

Influence of intra-aortic balloon pump on mortality as a function of cardiogenic shock severity

BACKGROUND

Randomized studies of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in cardiogenic shock (CS) have focused exclusively on patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) without stratification according to shock severity. We examined the association between IABP and mortality in CS patients across the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock stages.

METHODS

We included cardiac intensive care unit patients admitted from 2007 to 2015 with CS from any etiology. In-hospital mortality associated with IABP was examined in each SCAI shock stage. Multivariable logistic regression was performed using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to determine the association between IABP and in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

We included 934 patients, with a mean age of 68 ± 14 years; 60% had ACS. The distribution of SCAI shock stages was: B, 41%; C, 13%; D, 38%; E, 8%. In-hospital mortality was lower in the 39% of patients who received IABP (27% vs. 43%, adjusted OR with IABP after IPTW 0.53, 95% CI 0.40-0.72, p < .0001). IABP use was associated with lower crude in-hospital mortality in each SCAI shock stage (all p < .05, except p = .08 in SCAI shock stage E). We did not observe any significant heterogeneity in the association between IABP use and in-hospital mortality as a function of SCAI shock stage.

CONCLUSIONS

IABP use was associated with substantially lower in-hospital mortality in patients with CS, without differences in this effect across the SCAI shock stages. Future studies should account for the severity and etiology of shock when evaluating the efficacy of IABP for CS.

An update on levosimendan in acute cardiac care: applications and recommendations for optimal efficacy and safety

Introduction: In the 20 years since its introduction to the palette of intravenous hemodynamic therapies, the inodilator levosimendan has established itself as a valuable asset for the management of acute decompensated heart failure. Its pharmacology is notable for delivering inotropy via calcium sensitization without an increase in myocardial oxygen consumption.Areas covered: Experience with levosimendan has led to its applications expanding into perioperative hemodynamic support and various critical care settings, as well as an array of situations associated with acutely decompensated heart failure, such as right ventricular failure, cardiogenic shock with multi-organ dysfunction, and cardio-renal syndrome. Evidence suggests that levosimendan may be preferable to milrinone for patients in cardiogenic shock after cardiac surgery or for weaning from extracorporeal life support and may be superior to dobutamine in terms of short-term survival, especially in patients on beta-blockers. Positive effects on kidney function have been noted, further differentiating levosimendan from catecholamines and phosphodiesterase inhibitors.Expert opinion:Levosimendan can be a valuable resource in the treatment of acute cardiac dysfunction, especially in the presence of beta-blockers or ischemic cardiomyopathy. When attention is given to avoiding or correcting hypovolemia and hypokalemia, an early use of the drug in the treatment algorithm is preferred.

The Range of Cardiogenic Shock Survival by Clinical Stage: Data From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry

OBJECTIVES

Cardiogenic shock presents with variable severity. Categorizing cardiogenic shock into clinical stages may improve risk stratification and patient selection for therapies. We sought to determine whether a structured implementation of the 2019 Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions clinical cardiogenic shock staging criteria that is ascertainable in clinical registries discriminates mortality in a contemporary population with or at-risk for cardiogenic shock.

DESIGN

We developed a pragmatic application of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions cardiogenic shock staging criteria-A (at-risk), B (beginning), C (classic cardiogenic shock), D (deteriorating), or E (extremis)-and examined outcomes by stage.

SETTING

The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is an investigator-initiated multicenter research collaboration coordinated by the TIMI Study Group (Boston, MA). Consecutive admissions with or at-risk for cardiogenic shock during two annual 2-month collection periods (2017-2019) were analyzed.

PATIENTS

Patients with or at-risk for cardiogenic shock.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 8,240 CICU admissions reviewed, 1,991 (24%) had or were at-risk for cardiogenic shock. Distributions across the five stages were as follows: A: 33%; B: 7%; C: 16%; D: 23%; and E: 21%. Overall in-hospital mortality among patients with established cardiogenic shock was 39%; however, mortality varied from only 15.8% to 32.1% to 62.5% across stages C, D, and E (Cochran-Armitage ptrend < 0.0001). The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions stages improved mortality prediction beyond the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumpin Cardiogenic Shock II scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Although overall mortality in cardiogenic shock remains high, it varies considerably based on clinical stage, identifying stage C as relatively lower risk. We demonstrate a pragmatic adaptation of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions cardiogenic shock stages that effectively stratifies mortality risk and could be leveraged for future clinical research.

Cardiogenic shock teams and centres: a contemporary review of multidisciplinary care for cardiogenic shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) portends high morbidity and mortality in the contemporary era. Despite advances in temporary mechanical circulatory supports (MCS), their routine use in CS to improve outcomes has not been established. Delays in diagnosis and timely delivery of care, disparities in accessing adjunct therapies such revascularization or MCS, and lack of a systematic approach to care of CS contribute to the poor outcomes observed in CS patients. There is growing interest for developing a standardized multidisciplinary team-based approach in the management of CS. Recent prospective studies have shown feasibility of CS teams in improving survival across a spectrum of CS presentations. Herein, we will review the rationale for CS teams focusing on evidence supporting its use in streamlining care, optimizing revascularization strategies, and patient identification and MCS selection. The proposed structure and flow of CS teams will be outlined. An in-depth analysis of four recent studies demonstrating improved outcomes with CS teams is presented. Finally, we will explore potential implementation hurdles and future directions in refining and widespread implementation of dedicated cross-specialty CS teams.