The Calm Afterthe Storm

Predictors of Outcomes in Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (MI-CS) is a major cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Predictors of outcomes in MI-CS include clinical, laboratory, radiologic variables, and management strategies. This article reviews the existing literature on short- and long-term predictors and risk stratification in MI complicated by CS.

Inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies for the treatment of cardiogenic shock or low cardiac output syndrome

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) and low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) as complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF) or cardiac surgery are life-threatening conditions. While there is a broad body of evidence for the treatment of people with acute coronary syndrome under stable haemodynamic conditions, the treatment strategies for people who become haemodynamically unstable or develop CS remain less clear. We have therefore summarised here the evidence on the treatment of people with CS or LCOS with different inotropic agents and vasodilative drugs. This is the first update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess efficacy and safety of cardiac care with positive inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies in people with CS or LCOS due to AMI, HF or cardiac surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CPCI-S Web of Science in June 2017. We also searched four registers of ongoing trials and scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in people with myocardial infarction, heart failure or cardiac surgery complicated by cardiogenic shock or LCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 13 eligible studies with 2001 participants (mean or median age range 58 to 73 years) and two ongoing studies. We categorised studies into eight comparisons, all against cardiac care and additional other active drugs or placebo. These comparisons investigated the efficacy of levosimendan versus dobutamine, enoximone or placebo, epinephrine versus norepinephrine-dobutamine, amrinone versus dobutamine, dopexamine versus dopamine, enoximone versus dopamine and nitric oxide versus placebo.All trials were published in peer-reviewed journals, and analysis was done by the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. Twelve of 13 trials were small with few included participants. Acknowledgement of funding by the pharmaceutical industry or missing conflict of interest statements emerged in five of 13 trials. In general, confidence in the results of analysed studies was reduced due to serious study limitations, very serious imprecision or indirectness. Domains of concern, which show a high risk of more than 50%, include performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel) and bias affecting the quality of evidence on adverse events.Levosimendan may reduce short-term mortality compared to a therapy with dobutamine (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95; 6 studies; 1776 participants; low-quality evidence; NNT: 16 (patients with moderate risk), NNT: 5 (patients with CS)). This initial short-term survival benefit with levosimendan vs. dobutamine is not confirmed on long-term follow up. There is uncertainty (due to lack of statistical power) as to the effect of levosimendan compared to therapy with placebo (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.94; 2 studies; 55 participants, very low-quality evidence) or enoximone (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.14; 1 study; 32 participants, very low-quality evidence).All comparisons comparing other positive inotropic, inodilative or vasodilative drugs presented uncertainty on their effect on short-term mortality with very low-quality evidence and based on only one RCT. These single studies compared epinephrine with norepinephrine-dobutamine (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.77; 30 participants), amrinone with dobutamine (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.85; 30 participants), dopexamine with dopamine (no in-hospital deaths from 70 participants), enoximone with dobutamine (two deaths from 40 participants) and nitric oxide with placebo (one death from three participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Apart from low quality of evidence data suggesting a short-term mortality benefit of levosimendan compared with dobutamine, at present there are no robust and convincing data to support a distinct inotropic or vasodilator drug-based therapy as a superior solution to reduce mortality in haemodynamically unstable people with cardiogenic shock or LCOS.Considering the limited evidence derived from the present data due to a generally high risk of bias and imprecision, it should be emphasised that there remains a great need for large, well-designed randomised trials on this topic to close the gap between daily practice in critical care medicine and the available evidence. It seems to be useful to apply the concept of 'early goal-directed therapy' in cardiogenic shock and LCOS with early haemodynamic stabilisation within predefined timelines. Future clinical trials should therefore investigate whether such a therapeutic concept would influence survival rates much more than looking for the 'best' drug for haemodynamic support.

Ventricular Assist Device in Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by acute heart failure or cardiogenic shock have high mortality with conventional management.

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated outcomes of patients with AMI who received durable ventricular assist devices (VAD).

METHODS

Patients in the INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) registry who underwent VAD placement in the setting of AMI were included and compared with patients who received VAD for non-AMI indications.

RESULTS

VAD were implanted in 502 patients with AMI: 443 left ventricular assist devices; 33 biventricular assist devices; and 26 total artificial hearts. Median age was 58.3 years, and 77.1% were male. At implantation, 66% were INTERMACS profile 1. A higher proportion of AMI than non-AMI patients had pre-operative intra-aortic balloon pumps (57.6% vs. 25.3%; p < 0.01), intubation (58% vs. 8.3%; p < 0.01), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (17.9% vs. 1.7%, p < 0.01), cardiac arrest (33.5% vs. 3.3%, p < 0.01), and higher-acuity INTERMACS profiles. At 1 month post-VAD, 91.8% of AMI patients were alive with ongoing device support, 7.2% had died on device, and 1% had been transplanted. At 1-year post-VAD, 52% of AMI patients were alive with ongoing device support, 25.7% had been transplanted, 1.6% had left VAD explanted for recovery, and 20.7% had died on device. The AMI group had higher unadjusted early phase hazard (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.24; p = 0.04) and reduced late-phase hazard of death (HR: 0.57; p = 0.04) than the non-AMI group did. After accounting for established risk factors, the AMI group no longer had higher early mortality hazard (HR: 0.89; p = 0.30), but it had lower late mortality hazard (HR: 0.55; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with AMI who receive VAD have outcomes similar to other VAD populations, despite being more critically ill pre-implantation. VAD therapy is an effective strategy for patients with AMI and acute heart failure or shock in whom medical therapy is failing.

Use of left ventricular support devices during acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous coronary intervention

In an effort to improve outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVADs) have been investigated in (1) high-risk PCI, (2) acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) and (3) in AMI without CS. PCI has become an increasing complex due to an ageing population with complex disease and the frequent presence of impaired LV function. Patients undergoing high-risk PCI in these circumstances are prone to acute cardiovascular collapse. Additionally, mortality in AMI complicated by CS remains high. Lastly, LV support during AMI may reduce infarct size and therefore preserve LV function. At present, four commercially available devices exist: intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP), Impella, TandemHeart and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). These devices are employed in an effort to increase cardiac output, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and coronary perfusion and to reduce pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP). The mechanism of action differs with each device, and there are advantages and disadvantages. In this update, we discuss recent data describing the use of PVADs to support patients with AMI with or without cardiogenic shock and during high-risk PCI. We focus on the unique features of each device, highlighting strengths, weaknesses and frequently encountered complications, which may be important when tailoring the most appropriate PVAD therapy to an individual patient's need.

Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUND

Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) is currently the most commonly used mechanical assist device for patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction. Although there has been only limited evidence from randomised controlled trials, the previous guidelines of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) strongly recommended the use of the IABP in patients with infarction-related cardiogenic shock on the basis of pathophysiological considerations, non-randomised trials and registry data. The recent guidelines downgraded the recommendation based on a meta-analysis which could only include non-randomised trials showing conflicting results. Up to now, there have been no guideline recommendations and no actual meta-analysis including the results of the large randomised multicentre IABP-SHOCK II Trial which showed no survival benefit with IABP support. This systematic review is an update of the review published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate, in terms of efficacy and safety, the effect of IABP versus non-IABP or other assist devices guideline compliant standard therapy on mortality and morbidity in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE (Ovid), LILACS, IndMed and KoreaMed, registers of ongoing trials and proceedings of conferences were updated in October 2013. Reference lists were scanned and experts in the field contacted to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials on patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data collection and analysis were performed according to the published protocol. Individual patient data were provided for six trials and merged with aggregate data. Summary statistics for the primary endpoints were hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

Seven eligible studies were identified from a total of 2314 references. One new study with 600 patients was added to the original review. Four trials compared IABP to standard treatment and three to other percutaneous left assist devices (LVAD). Data from a total of 790 patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock were included in the updated meta-analysis: 406 patients were treated with IABP and 384 patients served as controls; 339 patients were treated without assisting devices and 45 patients with other LVAD. The HR for all-cause 30-day mortality of 0.95 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.19) provided no evidence for a survival benefit. Different non-fatal cardiovascular events were reported in five trials. During hospitalisation, 11 and 4 out of 364 patients from the intervention groups suffered from reinfarction or stroke, respectively. Altogether 5 out of 363 patients from the control group suffered from reinfarction or stroke. Reocclusion was treated with subsequent re-revascularization in 6 out of 352 patients from the intervention group and 13 out of 353 patients of the control group. The high incidence of complications such as moderate and severe bleeding or infection in the control groups has to be attributed to interventions with other LVAD. Possible reasons for bias were more frequent in small studies with high cross-over rates, early stopping and the inclusion of patients with IABP at randomisation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence suggests that IABP may have a beneficial effect on some haemodynamic parameters. However, this did not result in survival benefits so there is no convincing randomised data to support the use of IABP in infarct-related cardiogenic shock.

Inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock or low cardiac output syndrome

BACKGROUND

The recently published German-Austrian S3 Guideline for the treatment of infarct related cardiogenic shock (CS) revealed a lack of evidence for all recommended therapeutic measures.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects in terms of efficacy, efficiency and safety of cardiac care with inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies versus placebo or against each other for haemodynamic stabilisation following surgical treatment, interventional therapy (angioplasty, stent implantation) and conservative treatment (that is no revascularization) on mortality and morbidity in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by CS or low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid) and ISI Web of Science, registers of ongoing trials and proceedings of conferences in January 2013. Reference lists were scanned and experts in the field were contacted to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in patients with AMI complicated by CS or LCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data collection and analysis were performed according to the published protocol. All trials were analysed individually. Hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted but not pooled because of high heterogeneity between the control group interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

Four eligible, very small studies were identified from a total of 4065 references. Three trials with high overall risk of bias compared levosimendan to standard treatment (enoximone or dobutamine) or placebo. Data from a total of 63 participants were included in our comparisons, 31 were treated with levosimendan and 32 served as controls. Levosimendan showed an imprecise survival benefit in comparison with enoximone based on a very small trial with 32 participants (HR 0.33; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.97). Results from the other similarly small trials were too imprecise to provide any meaningful information about the effect of levosimendan in comparison with dobutamine or placebo. Only small differences in haemodynamics, length of hospital stay and the frequency of major adverse cardiac events or adverse events overall were found between study groups.Only one small randomised controlled trial with three participants was found for vasodilator strategies (nitric oxide gas versus placebo) in AMI complicated by CS or LCOS. This study was too small to draw any conclusions on the effects on our key outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present there are no robust and convincing data to support a distinct inotropic or vasodilator drug based therapy as a superior solution to reduce mortality in haemodynamically unstable patients with CS or low cardiac output complicating AMI.

Gender comparisons in cardiogenic shock during ST elevation myocardial infarction treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Among patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), cardiogenic shock (CS) is the leading cause of death, complicating up to 10% of admissions. Introduction of early revascularization strategies and mechanical ventricular support have seen short-term mortality associated with CS fall from 70% to 80% in the 1970s to approximately 50% to 60% in the 1990s. Previous studies reported a higher incidence of CS after AMI in women (11.6% vs 8.3%). The aims of this study were to determine hospital mortality outcomes and gender differences following primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in the setting of CS. Data were collected prospectively among all patients undergoing PPCI for AMI at a large UK tertiary cardiac center between April 2008 and October 2011. A sample of 2,864 patients (women: 844 [29.5%]) underwent PPCI, of which 141 (4.9%) had a confirmed diagnosis of CS. Eighty-one of 2,019 [4.0%] male patients (mean age: 64.2 years) and 60 of 844 [7.1%]) female patients (mean age: 69.9 years) with CS underwent PPCI (p <0.001). The overall hospital mortality was 35.5% with no gender difference (male: 35.8% vs female: 35%, p >0.99). In conclusion, this analysis demonstrates that in the contemporary PPCI era, there is a reduction in the incidence of CS with reduced hospital mortality rates and no gender difference. The absence of a gender difference is remarkable because higher proportions of women presented with CS and were older than their male counterparts. Long-term follow-up data are required to determine if this difference is sustained.

Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUND

Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) is currently the most commonly used mechanical assist device for patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction.Although there is only limited evidence by randomised controlled trials, the current guidelines of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology and the European Society of Cardiology strongly recommend the use of the intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with infarction-related cardiogenic shock on the basis of pathophysiological considerations as also non-randomised trials and registry data.   

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of IABP versus non-IABP or other assist devices guideline compliant standard therapy, in terms of efficacy and safety, on mortality and morbidity in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, LILACS, IndMed and KoreaMed, registers of ongoing trials and proceedings of conferences were conducted in January 2010, unrestricted by date. Reference lists were scanned and experts in the field contacted to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials on patients with myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data collection and analysis were performed according to a published protocol. Individual patient data were provided for five trials and merged with aggregate data. Summary statistics for the primary endpoints were hazard ratios (HR's) and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Six eligible and two ongoing studies were identified from a total of 1410 references. Three compared IABP to standard treatment and three to percutaneous left assist devices (LVAD). Data from a total of 190 patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock were included in the meta-analysis: 105 patients were treated with IABP and 85 patients served as controls. 40 patients were treated without assisting devices and 45 patients with LVAD. HR's for all-cause 30-day mortality of 1.04 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.73) provides no evidence for a survival benefit. While differences in survival were comparable in patients treated with IABP, with and without LVAD, haemodynamics and incidences of device related complications show heterogeneous results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence suggests that IABP may have a beneficial effect on the haemodynamics, however there is no convincing randomised data to support the use of IABP in infarct related cardiogenic shock.

Nitric oxide synthase inhibitors in cardiogenic shock: present and future

Cardiogenic shock (CS) accompanying myocardial infarction carries a case fatality rate of 40-50%. Profound myocardial dysfunction is partially reversible, and possibly related to a state of inflammatory storm accompanied by nitric oxide (NO) overproduction. CS survivors enjoy satisfactory longevity and quality of life. The focus of this review is to describe the available data regarding NO synthase (NOS) inhibitors in CS. In view of supportive evidence from mammalian research (inducible-NOS-knockout mice are less susceptible to ischemic and reperfusion injury), therapies mitigating NO overproduction were tested in human CS subjects. Human randomized clinical trials project excellent safety but lack of efficacy. Although the Phase III, multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of Tilarginine Acetate (L-N(G)-monomethyl arginine citrate [L-NMMA]) in CS (TRIUMPH) trial demonstrated lack of clinical benefit of 5-h infusion of L-NMMA in CS, major design issues regarding the optimal timing, dosing, duration and NOS inhibitor need to be addressed prior to rendering this therapy ineffective.