Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure and Shock

Use of Dexmedetomidine During an Emergent Exploratory Laparotomy in a High-Risk Cardiac Patient With an Intra-aortic Balloon Pump

An intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) may be placed preoperatively for high-risk patients with reduced ejection fraction or multivessel coronary disease undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) has both anesthetic and cardioprotective effects, and little evidence is present on its effect on minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) and bispectral index (BIS). We present the case of a high-risk cardiac patient who was admitted and required fluid optimization prior to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). An IABP was placed after failure to tolerate intermittent hemodialysis (iHD). Bowel ischemia complicated this patient's course, necessitating an urgent exploratory laparotomy with the IABP in place. DEX and 0.3-MAC sevoflurane were successfully used without perioperative cardiac complications. Continuous BIS monitoring was performed to maintain an adequate level of anesthesia. DEX should be considered as an alternative anesthetic adjuvant in high-risk and medically complex patients.

Incidence and severity of thrombocytopenia associated with use of intravascular microaxial ventricular assist devices for treatment of cardiogenic shock

INTRODUCTION

The use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for patients with refractory cardiogenic shock has increased over the past decade. Impella devices (intravascular microaxial ventricular assist devices [VADs]) have become common MCS options but reportedly cause thrombocytopenia. Limited published data regarding the incidence or severity of microaxial VAD-associated thrombocytopenia exists.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to determine the incidence, timing, and severity of thrombocytopenia in a microaxial VAD population.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter review of electronic medical records identified all patients implanted with microaxial VAD at three US academic teaching hospitals between June 2015 and August 2017. Patients were excluded for short-term procedural microaxial VAD use during percutaneous coronary intervention.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients underwent microaxial VAD insertion (95% for left-sided support) during the observed time period. Support was in place for a median duration of 5.2 (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.4-10.0) days. Within 7 days postinsertion, 98.5% of patients developed thrombocytopenia (platelet count <150,000/μl) and 81.3% of patients experienced a >50% platelet decrease. Average platelet count nadir was 68,200/μl or 63.9% from baseline occurring on median day 3.8 (IQR: 2.4-5.4). Twenty-four patients (38.1%) were tested for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia by the heparin-dependent antibody (HDA) test. All HDAs were either negative or had serotonin release assay negative confirmation. Postdevice removal, platelet counts returned to baseline or >150,000/μl in 63% of patients by Day 5.

CONCLUSION

Microaxial VAD-associated thrombocytopenia is common. Practitioners should consider this when evaluating supported patients for other causes of thrombocytopenia. Platelet counts return to preimplantation levels within days of device removal.

Case Report: Two Cases of Watershed Phenomenon in Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: Computed Tomography Angiography Imaging and Literature Review

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has become a processing technique used in end-stage heart failure (ESHF) because it can significantly improve survival and quality of life in patients with ESHF as either a transitional support therapy or a permanent replacement therapy before heart transplant. However, various potential complications associated with MCS need to be considered, especially aortic root thrombus formation. It’s critical to have an appropriate diagnosis of aortic root thrombus and “watershed” because the prognosis and treatment are different. Both “watershed” and aortic root thrombus formation can be characterized by computed tomography angiography. The CT manifestations of two patients who had MCS device implantation in our hospital (one with intra-aortic balloon pumps + extracorporeal membrane oxygenators, the other with left ventricular assist devices) were reported, and a literature review that recognized of “watershed” phenomenon in the aortic root was conducted.

Chinese society of cardiology expert consensus statement on the diagnosis and treatment of adult fulminant myocarditis

Fulminant myocarditis is primarily caused by infection with any number of a variety of viruses. It arises quickly, progresses rapidly, and may lead to severe heart failure or circulatory failure presenting as rapid-onset hypotension and cardiogenic shock, with mortality rates as high as 50%-70%. Most importantly, there are no treatment options, guidelines or an expert consensus statement. Here, we provide the first expert consensus, the Chinese Society of Cardiology Expert Consensus Statement on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Fulminant Myocarditis, based on data from our recent clinical trial (NCT03268642). In this statement, we describe the clinical features and diagnostic criteria of fulminant myocarditis, and importantly, for the first time, we describe a new treatment regimen termed life support-based comprehensive treatment regimen. The core content of this treatment regimen includes (i) mechanical life support (applications of mechanical respirators and circulatory support systems, including intraaortic balloon pump and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, (ii) immunological modulation by using sufficient doses of glucocorticoid, immunoglobulin and (iii) antiviral reagents using neuraminidase inhibitor. The proper application of this treatment regimen may and has helped to save the lives of many patients with fulminant myocarditis.

A Long-Forgotten Tale: The Management of Cardiogenic Shock in Acute Myocardial Infarction

Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated with cardiogenic shock (CS) present one of the highest mortality rates recorded in critical care. Mortality rate in this setting is reported around 45-50% even in the most experienced and well-equipped medical centers. The continuous development of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) networks has led not only to a dramatic decrease in STEMI-related mortality, but also to an increase in the frequency of severely complicated cases who survive to be transferred to tertiary centers for life-saving treatments. The reduced effectiveness of vasoactive drugs on a severely altered hemodynamic status led to the development of new devices dedicated to advanced cardiac support. What’s more, efforts are being made to reduce time from first medical contact to initiation of mechanical support in this particular clinical context. This review aims to summarize the most recent advances in mechanical support devices, in the setting of CS-complicated AMI. At the same time, the review presents several modern concepts in the organization of complex CS centers. These specialized hubs could improve survival in this critical condition.

Implementation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team and Clinical Outcomes (INOVA-SHOCK Registry): Observational and Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

The development and implementation of a Cardiogenic Shock initiative focused on increased disease awareness, early multidisciplinary team activation, rapid initiation of mechanical circulatory support, and hemodynamic-guided management and improvement of outcomes in cardiogenic shock.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study are (1) to collect retrospective clinical outcomes for acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock and acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock, and compare current versus historical survival rates and clinical outcomes; (2) to evaluate Inova Heart and Vascular Institute site specific outcomes before and after initiation of the Cardiogenic Shock team on January 1, 2017; (3) to compare outcomes related to early implementation of mechanical circulatory support and hemodynamic-guided management versus historical controls; (4) to assess survival to discharge rate in patients receiving intervention from the designated shock team and (5) create a clinical archive of Cardiogenic Shock patient characteristics for future analysis and the support of translational research studies.

METHODS

This is an observational, retrospective, single center study. Retrospective and prospective data will be collected in patients treated at the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute with documented cardiogenic shock as a result of acute decompensated heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. This registry will include data from patients prior to and after the initiation of the multidisciplinary Cardiogenic Shock team on January 1, 2017. Clinical outcomes associated with early multidisciplinary team intervention will be analyzed. In the study group, all patients evaluated for documented cardiogenic shock (acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock, acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock) treated at the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute by the Cardiogenic Shock team will be included. An additional historical Inova Heart and Vascular Institute control group will be analyzed as a comparator. Means with standard deviations will be reported for outcomes. For categorical variables, frequencies and percentages will be presented. For continuous variables, the number of subjects, mean, standard deviation, minimum, 25th percentile, median, 75th percentile and maximum will be reported. Reported differences will include standard errors and 95% CI.

RESULTS

Preliminary data analysis for the year 2017 has been completed. Compared to a baseline 2016 survival rate of 47.0%, from 2017 to 2018, CS survival rates were increased to 57.9% (58/110) and 81.3% (81/140), respectively (P=.01 for both). Study data will continue to be collected until December 31, 2018.

CONCLUSIONS

The preliminary results of this study demonstrate that the INOVA SHOCK team approach to the treatment of Cardiogenic Shock with early team activation, rapid initiation of mechanical circulatory support, hemodynamic-guided management, and strict protocol adherence is associated with superior clinical outcomes: survival to discharge and overall survival when compared to 2015 and 2016 outcomes prior to Shock team initiation. What may limit the generalization of these results of this study to other populations are site specific; expertise of the team, strict algorithm adherence based on the INOVA SHOCK protocol, and staff commitment to timely team activation. Retrospective clinical outcomes (acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock, acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock) demonstrated an increase in current survival rates when compared to pre-Cardiogenic Shock team initiation, rapid team activation and diagnosis and timely utilization of mechanical circulatory support.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03378739; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03378739 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/701vstDGd).