Clinical Presentation and In-Hospital Trajectory of Heart Failure and Cardiogenic Shock

Predictive modeling of preoperative acute heart failure in older adults with hypertension: a dual perspective of SHAP values and interaction analysis

BACKGROUND

In older adults with hypertension, hip fractures accompanied by preoperative acute heart failure significantly elevate surgical risks and adverse outcomes, necessitating timely identification and management to improve patient outcomes.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

This study aims to enhance the early recognition of acute heart failure in older hypertensive adults prior to hip fracture surgery by developing a predictive model using logistic regression (LR) and machine learning methods, optimizing preoperative assessment and management.

METHODS

Employing a retrospective study design, we analyzed hypertensive older adults who underwent hip fracture surgery at Hebei Medical University Third Hospital from January 2018 to December 2022. Predictive models were constructed using LASSO regression and multivariable logistic regression, evaluated via nomogram charts. Five additional machine learning methods were utilized, with variable importance assessed using SHAP values and the impact of key variables evaluated through multivariate correlation analysis and interaction effects.

RESULTS

The study included 1,370 patients. LASSO regression selected 18 key variables, including sex, age, coronary heart disease, pulmonary infection, ventricular arrhythmias, acute myocardial infarction, and anemia. The logistic regression model demonstrated robust performance with an AUC of 0.753. Although other models outperformed it in sensitivity and F1 score, logistic regression's discriminative ability was significant for clinical decision-making. The Gradient Boosting Machine model, notable for a sensitivity of 95.2%, indicated substantial capability in identifying patients at risk, crucial for reducing missed diagnoses.

CONCLUSION

We developed and compared efficacy of predictive models using logistic regression and machine learning, interpreting them with SHAP values and analyzing key variable interactions. This offers a scientific basis for assessing preoperative heart failure risk in older adults with hypertension and hip fractures, providing significant guidance for individualized treatment strategies and underscoring the value of applying machine learning in clinical settings.

Blueprint for Building and Sustaining a Cardiogenic Shock Program: Qualitative Survey of 12 US Programs

Background

Multidisciplinary cardiogenic shock (CS) programs have been associated with improved outcomes, yet practical guidance for developing a CS program is lacking.

Methods

A survey on CS program development and operational best practices was administered to 12 institutions in diverse sociogeographic regions and practice settings. Common steps in program development were identified.

Results

Key steps for program development were identified: measuring baseline outcomes; identifying subspecialty champions; gaining leadership and team buy-in; developing institution-specific CS protocols; educating staff and referring providers; consulting with external experts; and developing quality assessment and process improvement.

Conclusions

An assessment of 12 US CS programs highlights a blueprint for establishing and maintaining a successful, multidisciplinary shock program.

Non-acute myocardial infarction-associated cardiogenic shock in Hispanic patients: An analysis from the National Inpatient Sample Database

Background

Current knowledge about non-acute myocardial infarction-associated cardiogenic shock (nAMI-CS) by ethnicity is limited. This study compares clinical features and outcomes of nAMI-CS in Hispanic versus non-Hispanic patients in the U.S.

Methods

Hospitalizations with nAMI-CS from 2018 to 2020 were identified using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Patients were classified by ethnicity (Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic). Statistical analysis, including Chi-square and t-tests, was conducted using STATA version 18.

Results

Out of 8607 nAMI-CS hospitalizations, 832 (9.6 %) were Hispanic. Hispanic patients were younger (62.3 ± 15.2 vs. 66.2 ± 15.3 years) and had higher incidences of smoking (2.4 % vs. 2.1 %), coronary artery disease (45.4 % vs. 44.1 %), myocardial infarction (2.9 % vs. 1.9 %), heart failure (10.1 % vs. 9.2 %), and diabetes mellitus (18.9 % vs. 18.1 %). They had lower incidences of hypertension (32.9 % vs. 34.3 %), valve disease (1.9 % vs. 2.1 %), and cerebrovascular disease (6.5 % vs. 8.5 %, all p < 0.005). Hispanic patients had slightly higher in-hospital mortality rates (18.6 % vs. 17 %, p < 0.001), with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 1.20 (95 % CI: 1.01-1.50, p = 0.01). Their hospital stays were longer (17.7 ± 1.87 vs. 13.2 ± 0.31 days, p = 0.03) and costlier ($409,280 ± 591,582 vs. $291,298 ± 461,920, p = 0.03).

Conclusion

Hispanic nAMI-CS patients are younger, have more co-morbid conditions, longer hospital stays, higher costs, and higher in-hospital mortality rates than non-Hispanic patients. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms behind these disparities.

The Price We Pay for Progression in Shock Care: Economic Burden, Accessibility, and Adoption of Shock-Teams and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with high in-hospital and long-term mortality and morbidity that results in significant socio-economic impact. Due to the high costs associated with CS care, it is important to define the short- and long-term burden of this disease state on resources and review strategies to mitigate these.

RECENT FINDINGS

In recent times, the focus on CS continues to be on improving short-term outcomes, but there has been increasing emphasis on the long-term morbidity. In this review we discuss the long-term outcomes of CS and the role of hospital-level and system-level disparities in perpetuating this. We discuss mitigation strategies including developing evidence-based protocols and systems of care, improvement in risk stratification and evaluation of futility of care, all of which address the economic burden of CS. CS continues to remain the pre-eminent challenge in acute cardiovascular care, and a combination of multi-pronged strategies are needed to improve outcomes in this population.

Cardiac Failure and Cardiogenic Shock: Insights Into Pathophysiology, Classification, and Hemodynamic Assessment

Heart failure is defined as increased intracardiac pressures, either alone or combined with reduced cardiac output. Clinically, it is presented with signs and symptoms of congestion and compensated perfusion. Cardiogenic shock, on the other hand, is the spectrum of hemodynamic disturbances that lead to hypoperfusion or need for circulatory support, due to cardiac disease. Both entities affect millions of people worldwide, have a dismal prognosis, and constitute a severe socioeconomic burden. Heart failure can be the aftermath of ischemic heart disease, hypertension, arrhythmias, or cardiomyopathies. It undergoes multiple classifications, facilitating its investigation and treatment. The pathogenetic mechanisms differ in various types of heart failure, regarding the affected ventricles, the duration of symptoms, and their primary/secondary onset. These mechanisms reflect the complex interactions between cardiopulmonary, vascular, and hepatorenal systems. Acute deterioration of cardiac function can lead to cardiogenic shock. Myocardial infarction accounts for 81% of such cases. Healthy lifestyle and timely management of coronary artery disease are paramount, as they can prevent this life-threatening situation and reduce mortality and the economic burden for healthcare systems. Irrespective of the etiology, cardiogenic shock is interpreted using the pressure-volume loop. This can be modified for each ventricle, the underlying pathophysiology, and the time since symptoms' onset. It therefore provides valuable information about the native circulation and the expected alterations under mechanical or pharmacological support, facilitating the decision-making progress. In 2019, given the phenotypical heterogeneity of cardiogenic shock, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions introduced a classification system. According to this, patients are stratified in five stages proportionally to the severity of their condition. Aside from this classification, various biochemical, imaging, and hemodynamic monitoring indices are used to assess coagulation pathway and cardiac, hepatorenal, and pulmonary function, enabling the heart team to tailor therapy. Additionally, the prognostication progress is facilitated by scores, such as the Observatoire Regional Breton sur l'Infarctus (ORBI) score, the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) SHOCK-II score, and the CardShock score, indicating suitable escalation or de-escalation strategies. Despite the current progress, there are several areas of advancement regarding the role of vasoactive drugs in cardiogenic shock, revascularization options, mechanical ventilation patterns, hypothermia treatment, and mechanical circulatory support protocols.

Multidisciplinary Care Teams in Acute Cardiovascular Care: A Review of Composition, Logistics, Outcomes, Training, and Future Directions

As cardiovascular care continues to advance and with an aging population with higher comorbidities, the epidemiology of the cardiac intensive care unit has undergone a paradigm shift. There has been increasing emphasis on the development of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) for providing holistic care to complex critically ill patients, analogous to heart teams for chronic cardiovascular care. Outside of cardiovascular medicine, MDTs in critical care medicine focus on implementation of guideline-directed care, prevention of iatrogenic harm, communication with patients and families, point-of-care decision-making, and the development of care plans. MDTs in acute cardiovascular care include physicians from cardiovascular medicine, critical care medicine, interventional cardiology, cardiac surgery, and advanced heart failure, in addition to nonphysician team members. In this document, we seek to describe the changes in patients in the cardiac intensive care unit, health care delivery, composition, logistics, outcomes, training, and future directions for MDTs involved in acute cardiovascular care. As a part of the comprehensive review, we performed a scoping of concepts of MDTs, acute hospital care, and cardiovascular conditions and procedures.

Short term outcomes and resource utilization in de-novo versus acute on chronic heart failure related cardiogenic shock: a nationwide analysis

Background

There has been growing recognition of non-ischemic etiologies of cardiogenic shock (CS). To further understand this population, we aimed to investigate differences in clinical course between acute on chronic heart failure related (CHF-CS) and de-novo CS (DN-CS).

Methods

Using the Nationwide Readmission Database, we examined 92,426 CS cases. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital and 30-day outcomes and use of advanced heart failure therapies.

Results

Patients with DN-CS had higher in-hospital mortality than the CHF-CS cohort (32.6% vs. 30.4%, p < 0.001). Mechanical circulatory support (11.9% vs. 8.6%, p < 0.001) was more utilized in DN-CS. Renal replacement therapy (13.8% vs. 15.5%, p < 0.001) and right heart catheterization (16.0% vs. 21.0%, p < 0.001) were implemented more in the CHF-CS cohort. The CHF-CS cohort was also more likely to undergo LVAD implantation (0.4% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.001) and heart transplantation (0.5% vs. 2.0%, p < 0.001). Over the study period, advanced heart failure therapy utilization increased, but the proportion of patients receiving these interventions remained unchanged. Thirty days after index hospitalization, the CHF-CS cohort had more readmissions for heart failure (1.1% vs. 2.4%, p < 0.001) and all causes (14.1% vs. 21.1%, p < 0.001) with higher readmission mortality (1.1% vs. 2.3%, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Our findings align with existing research, demonstrating higher in-hospital mortality in the DN-CS subgroup. After the index hospitalization, however, the CHF-CS cohort performed worse with higher all-cause readmission rate and readmission mortality. The study also underscores the need for further investigation into the underutilization of certain interventions and the observed trends in the management of these CS subgroups.

Dynamic assessment of left ventricular coupling and myocardial reserve in patients with cardiogenic shock

Aims

Pulmonary artery catheter haemodynamics are associated with improved survival in cardiogenic shock (CS). We investigated the utility of aortic pulsatility index (API) and cardiac power output (CPO) as surrogates for left ventricular (LV) coupling and myocardial reserve, respectively, in patients with CS undergoing dynamic assessment after a milrinone bolus.

Methods and results

Patients with SCAI Stage C CS underwent a milrinone drug study (50 mcg/kg bolus infused over 10 min) to assess inotropic response. Haemodynamic measurements were obtained at baseline and following the bolus. Aortic pulsatility index and CPO were used to risk-stratify patients with the incidence of LV assist device (LVAD), orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT), or death at 1 year as the primary composite endpoint. Two hundred and twenty-four patients in SCAI Stage C CS underwent haemodynamics prior to milrinone bolus, and 117 patients had low baseline API < 1.45. Of the 117 patients, 88 had a final API < 2.2 after milrinone load, consistent with LV decoupling, in which 73% met the composite endpoint. The remaining 29 patients had a final API ≥ 2.2 consistent with LV recoupling, and only 55% met the composite endpoint (P = 0.046). Of the 117 patients, 40 patients had low myocardial reserve (final CPO < 0.77 W), in which 78% met the composite endpoint. Of the 77 patients who demonstrated myocardial reserve (final CPO ≥ 0.77 W), only 64% met the composite endpoint (P = 0.039).

Conclusion

The use of API and CPO in a dynamic assessment after provocative testing led to improved risk stratification in patients with SCAI Stage C CS for clinical outcomes including LVAD, OHT, or death at 1 year.

Clinical outcomes among cardiogenic shock patients supported with high-capacity Impella axial flow pumps: A report from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group

BACKGROUND

The Impella 5.0 and 5.5 pumps (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) are large-bore transvalvular micro-axial assist devices used in cardiogenic shock (CS) for patients requiring high-capacity flow. Despite their increasing use, real-world data regarding indications, rates of utilization and clinical outcomes with this therapy are limited. The objective of our study was to examine clinical profiles and outcomes of patients in a contemporary, real-world CS registry of patients who received an Impella 5.0/5.5 alone or in combination with other temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices.

METHODS

The CS Working Group (CSWG) Registry includes patients from 34 US hospitals. For this analysis, data from patients who received an Impella 5.0/5.5 between 2020-2023 were analyzed. Use of Impella 5.0/5.5 with or without additional tMCS therapies, duration of support, adverse events and outcomes at hospital discharge were studied. Adverse events including stroke, limb ischemia, bleeding and hemolysis were not standardized by the registry but reported per individual CSWG Primary Investigator discretion. For those who survived, rates of native heart recovery (NHR) or heart replacement therapy (HRT) including heart transplant (HT), or durable ventricular assist device (VAD) were recorded. We also assessed outcomes based on shock etiology (acute myocardial infarction or MI-CS vs. heart failure-related CS or HF-CS).

RESULTS

Among 6,205 patients, 754 received an Impella 5.0/5.5 (12.1%), including 210 MI-CS (27.8%) and 484 HF-CS (64.1%) patients. Impella 5.0/5.5 was used as the sole tMCS device in 32% of patients, while 68% of patients received a combination of tMCS devices. Impella cannulation sites were available for 524/754 (69.4%) of patients, with 93.5% axillary configuration. Survival to hospital discharge for those supported with an Impella 5.0/5.5 was 67%, with 20.4% NHR and 45.5% HRT. Compared to HF-CS, patients with MI-CS supported on Impella 5.0/5.5 had higher in-hospital mortality (45.2% vs 26.2%, p < 0.001) and were less likely to receive HRT (22.4% vs 56.6%, p < 0.001. For patients receiving a combination of tMCS during hospitalization, this was associated with higher rates of limb ischemia (9% vs. 3%, p < 0.01), bleeding (52% vs 33%, p < 0.01), and mortality (38% vs 25%; p < 0.001) compared to Impella 5.0/5.5 alone. Among Impella 5.0/5.5 recipients, the median duration of pump support was 12.9 days (IQR: 6.8-22.9) and longer in patients bridged to HRT (14 days; IQR: 7.7-28.4).

CONCLUSIONS

In this multi-center cohort of patients with CS, use of Impella 5.0/5.5 was associated with an overall survival of 67.1% and high rates of HRT. Lower adverse event rates were observed when Impella 5.0/5.5 was the sole support device used. Further study is required to determine whether a strategy of early Impella 5.0/5.5 use for CS improves survival.

CONDENSED ABSTRACT

High capacity Impella heart pumps are capable of provide up to 5.5 liter/min of flow while upper body surgical placement allows for ambulation. Patients with advanced cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction or heart failure requiring temporary mechanical circulatory support may benefit from upfront use of Impella 5.5 to improve overall survival, including native heart recovery or successful bridge to durable left ventricular assist device surgery or heart transplantation.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Suffering Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) can stem from multiple causes and portends poor prognosis. Prior studies have focused on acute myocardial infarction-CS; however, acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF)-CS accounts for most cases. We studied patients suffering ADHF-CS to identify clinical factors, early in their trajectory, associated with a higher probability of successful outcomes.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with CS were evaluated (N=1162). We studied patients who developed ADHF-CS at our hospital (N=562). Primary end point was native heart survival (NHS), defined as survival to discharge without receiving advanced HF therapies. Secondary end points were adverse events, survival, major cardiac interventions, and hospital readmissions within 1 year following index hospitalization discharge. Association of clinical data with NHS was analyzed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Overall, 357 (63.5%) patients achieved NHS, 165 (29.2%) died, and 41 (7.3%) were discharged post advanced HF therapies. Of 398 discharged patients (70.8%), 303 (53.9%) were alive at 1 year. Patients with NHS less commonly suffered cardiac arrest, underwent intubation or pulmonary artery catheter placement, or received temporary mechanical circulatory support, had better hemodynamic and echocardiographic profiles, and had a lower vasoactive-inotropic score at shock onset. Bleeding, hemorrhagic stroke, hemolysis in patients with mechanical circulatory support, and acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy were less common compared with patients who died or received advanced HF therapies. After multivariable adjustments, clinical variables associated with NHS likelihood included younger age, history of systemic hypertension, absence of cardiac arrest or acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy, lower pulmonary capillary wedge pressure and vasoactive-inotropic score, and higher tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion at shock onset (all P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

By studying contemporary patients with ADHF-CS, we identified clinical factors that can inform clinical management and provide future research targets. Right ventricular function, renal function, pulmonary artery catheter placement, and type and timing of temporary mechanical circulatory support warrant further investigation to improve outcomes of this devastating condition.

How preclinical models help to improve outcome in cardiogenic shock

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Preclinical experimentation of cardiogenic shock resuscitation on large animal models represents a powerful tool to decipher its complexity and improve its poor outcome, when small animal models are lacking external validation, and clinical investigation are limited due to technical and ethical constraints. This review illustrates the currently available preclinical models addressing reliably the physiopathology and hemodynamic phenotype of cardiogenic shock, highlighting on the opposite questionable translation based on low severity acute myocardial infarction (AMI) models.

RECENT FINDINGS

Three types of preclinical models replicate reliably AMI-related cardiogenic shock, either with coronary microembolization, coronary deoxygenated blood perfusion or double critical coronary sub-occlusion. These models overcame the pitfall of frequent periprocedural cardiac arrest and offer, to different extents, robust opportunities to investigate pharmacological and/or mechanical circulatory support therapeutic strategies, cardioprotective approaches improving heart recovery and mitigation of the systemic inflammatory reaction. They all came with their respective strengths and weaknesses, allowing the researcher to select the right preclinical model for the right clinical question.

SUMMARY

AMI-related cardiogenic shock preclinical models are now well established and should replace low severity AMI models. Technical and ethical constraints are not trivial, but this translational research is a key asset to build up meaningful future clinical investigations.

Serial Shock Severity Assessment Within 72 Hours After Diagnosis: A Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Report

BACKGROUND

The Cardiogenic Shock Working Group-modified Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (CSWG-SCAI) staging was developed to risk stratify cardiogenic shock (CS) severity. Data showing progressive changes in SCAI stages and outcomes are limited.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated serial changes in CSWG-SCAI stages and outcomes of patients presenting with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (MI-CS) and heart failure-related CS (HF-CS).

METHODS

The multicenter CSWG registry was queried. CSWG-SCAI stages were computed at CS diagnosis and 24, 48, and 72 hours.

RESULTS

A total of 3,268 patients (57% HF-CS; 27% MI-CS) were included. At CS diagnosis, CSWG-SCAI stage breakdown was 593 (18.1%) stage B, 528 (16.2%) stage C, 1,659 (50.8%) stage D, and 488 (14.9%) noncardiac arrest stage E. At 24 hours, >50% of stages B and C patients worsened, but 86% of stage D patients stayed at stage D. Among stage E patients, 54% improved to stage D and 36% stayed at stage E by 24 hours. Minimal SCAI stage changes occurred beyond 24 hours. SCAI stage trajectories were similar between MI-CS and HF-CS groups. Within 24 hours, unadjusted mortality rates of patients with any SCAI stage worsening or improving were 44.6% and 34.2%, respectively. Patients who presented in or progressed to stage E by 24 hours had the worst prognosis. Survivors had lower lactate than nonsurvivors.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with CS changed SCAI stages within 24 hours from CS diagnosis. Stage B patients were at high risk of worsening shock severity by 24 hours, associated with excess mortality. Early CS recognition and serial assessment may improve risk stratification.

Cardiogenic shock trajectories: is the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions definition the right one?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We review the current Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) cardiogenic shock classification system and consider alternatives or iterations that may enhance our current descriptions of cardiogenic shock trajectory.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several studies have identified the potential prognostic value of serial SCAI stage re-assessment, usually within the first 24 h of shock onset, to predict deterioration and clinical outcomes across shock causes. In parallel, numerous registry-based analyses support the utility of a more precise assessment of the macrocirculation and microcirculation, leveraging invasive haemodynamics, imaging and additional laboratory and clinical markers. The emergence of machine learning and artificial intelligence capabilities offers the opportunity to integrate multimodal data into high fidelity, real-time metrics to more precisely define trajectory and inform our therapeutic decision making.

SUMMARY

Whilst the SCAI staging system remains a pivotal tool in cardiogenic shock assessment, communication and reassessment, it is vital that the sophistication with which we measure and assess shock trajectory evolves in parallel our understanding of the complexity and variability of clinical course and clinical outcomes.

Implementation of a cardiogenic shock team in a tertiary academic center

OBJECTIVE

Observational studies have shown that the management of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) by dedicated multidisciplinary teams improves clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, these studies reflect a specific organizational setting with most patients being transferred from referring hospitals, hospitalized in cardiac intensive care units (ICU), or treated with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices. The purpose of this study was to document the organization and outcomes of a CS team offering acute care in an all-comer population.

METHODS

A CS team was developed in a large academic tertiary institution. The team consisted of emergency care physicians, critical care cardiologists, interventional cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, ICU physicians, and heart failure specialists and was supported by a predefined operating protocol, a dedicated communication platform, and regular team meetings.

RESULTS

Over 12 months, 70 CS patients (69 ± 13 years old, 67% males) were included. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) was the most common cause (64%); 31% of the patients presented post-resuscitated cardiac arrest and 56% needed invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Coronary angiography was performed in 70% and 53% had percutaneous coronary intervention. MCS was used in 10% and 6% were referred for urgent cardiac surgery. The in-hospital mortality in our center was 40% with 39% of the patients dying within 24 h from presentation. Overall, 76% of the live patients were discharged home.

CONCLUSION

Across an all-comer population, AMI was the most common cause of CS. A significant number of patients presented post-cardiac arrest, and the majority required IMV. Mortality was high with a significant number dying within hours of presentation.

American Heart Association Cardiogenic Shock Registry: Design and Implementation

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock is a morbid complication of heart disease that claims the lives of more than 1 in 3 patients presenting with this syndrome. Supporting a unique collaboration across clinical specialties, federal regulators, payors, and industry, the American Heart Association volunteers and staff have launched a quality improvement registry to better understand the clinical manifestations of shock phenotypes, and to benchmark the management patterns, and outcomes of patients presenting with cardiogenic shock to hospitals across the United States.

METHODS

Participating hospitals will enroll consecutive hospitalized patients with cardiogenic shock, regardless of etiology or severity. Data are collected through individual reviews of medical records of sequential adult patients with cardiogenic shock. The electronic case record form was collaboratively designed with a core minimum data structure and aligned with Shock Academic Research Consortium definitions. This registry will allow participating health systems to evaluate patient-level data including diagnostic approaches, therapeutics, use of advanced monitoring and circulatory support, processes of care, complications, and in-hospital survival. Participating sites can leverage these data for onsite monitoring of outcomes and benchmarking versus other institutions. The registry was concomitantly designed to provide a high-quality longitudinal research infrastructure for pragmatic randomized trials as well as translational, clinical, and implementation research. An aggregate deidentified data set will be made available to the research community on the American Heart Association's Precision Medicine Platform. On March 31, 2022, the American Heart Association Cardiogenic Shock Registry received its first clinical records. At the time of this submission, 100 centers are participating.

CONCLUSIONS

The American Heart Association Cardiogenic Shock Registry will serve as a resource using consistent data structure and definitions for the medical and research community to accelerate scientific advancement through shared learning and research resulting in improved quality of care and outcomes of shock patients.

Shock Severity Classification and Mortality in Adults With Cardiac, Medical, Surgical, and Neurological Critical Illness

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Shock Classification could perform risk stratification in a mixed cohort of intensive care unit (ICU) patients, similar to its validation in patients with acute cardiac disease.

METHODS

We included 21,461 adult Mayo Clinic ICU patient admissions from December 1, 2014, to February 28, 2018, including cardiac ICU (16.7%), medical ICU (37.4%), neurosciences ICU (27.7%), and surgical ICU (18.2%). The SCAI Shock Classification (a 5-stage classification from no shock [A] to refractory shock [E]) was assigned in each 4-hour period during the first 24 hours of ICU admission.

RESULTS

The median age was 65 years, and 43.2% were female. In-hospital mortality occurred in 1611 (7.5%) patients, with a stepwise increase in in-hospital mortality in each higher maximum SCAI Shock stage overall: A, 4.0%; B, 4.6%; C, 7.0%; D, 13.9%; and E, 40.2%. The SCAI Shock Classification provided incremental mortality risk stratification in each ICU, with the best performance in the cardiac ICU and the worse performance in the neurosciences ICU. The SCAI Shock Classification was associated with higher adjusted in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.32 per each stage; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.41; P<.001); this association was not observed in the neurosciences ICU when considered separately.

CONCLUSION

The SCAI Shock Classification provided incremental mortality risk stratification beyond established prognostic markers across the spectrum of medical and surgical critical illness, proving utility outside its original intent.

The management of heart failure cardiogenic shock: an international RAND appropriateness panel

BACKGROUND

Observational data suggest that the subset of patients with heart failure related CS (HF-CS) now predominate critical care admissions for CS. There are no dedicated HF-CS randomised control trials completed to date which reliably inform clinical practice or clinical guidelines. We sought to identify aspects of HF-CS care where both consensus and uncertainty may exist to guide clinical practice and future clinical trial design, with a specific focus on HF-CS due to acute decompensated chronic HF.

METHODS

A 16-person multi-disciplinary panel comprising of international experts was assembled. A modified RAND/University of California, Los Angeles, appropriateness methodology was used. A survey comprising of 34 statements was completed. Participants anonymously rated the appropriateness of each statement on a scale of 1 to 9 (1-3 as inappropriate, 4-6 as uncertain and as 7-9 appropriate).

RESULTS

Of the 34 statements, 20 were rated as appropriate and 14 were rated as inappropriate. Uncertainty existed across all three domains: the initial assessment and management of HF-CS; escalation to temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support (tMCS); and weaning from tMCS in HF-CS. Significant disagreement between experts (deemed present when the disagreement index exceeded 1) was only identified when deliberating the utility of thoracic ultrasound in the immediate management of HF-CS.

CONCLUSION

This study has highlighted several areas of practice where large-scale prospective registries and clinical trials in the HF-CS population are urgently needed to reliably inform clinical practice and the synthesis of future societal HF-CS guidelines.

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.

Heart failure related cardiogenic shock: An ISHLT consensus conference content summary

In recent years, there have been significant advancements in the understanding, risk-stratification, and treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS). Despite improved pharmacologic and device-based therapies for CS, short-term mortality remains as high as 50%. Most recent efforts in research have focused on CS related to acute myocardial infarction, even though heart failure related CS (HF-CS) accounts for >50% of CS cases. There is a paucity of high-quality evidence to support standardized clinical practices in approach to HF-CS. In addition, there is an unmet need to identify disease-specific diagnostic and risk-stratification strategies upon admission, which might ultimately guide the choice of therapies, and thereby improve outcomes and optimize resource allocation. The heterogeneity in defining CS, patient phenotypes, treatment goals and therapies has resulted in difficulty comparing published reports and standardized treatment algorithms. An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) consensus conference was organized to better define, diagnose, and manage HF-CS. There were 54 participants (advanced heart failure and interventional cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, critical care cardiologists, intensivists, pharmacists, and allied health professionals), with vast clinical and published experience in CS, representing 42 centers worldwide. State-of-the-art HF-CS presentations occurred with subsequent breakout sessions planned in an attempt to reach consensus on various issues, including but not limited to models of CS care delivery, patient presentations in HF-CS, and strategies in HF-CS management. This consensus report summarizes the contemporary literature review on HF-CS presented in the first half of the conference (part 1), while the accompanying document (part 2) covers the breakout sessions where the previously agreed upon clinical issues were discussed with an aim to get to a consensus.

Clinical presentation, shock severity and mortality in patients with de novo versus acute-on-chronic heart failure-related cardiogenic shock

AIMS

Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for a significant proportion of CS cases. Whether patients with de novo HF and those with acute-on-chronic HF in CS differ in clinical characteristics and outcome remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate differences in clinical presentation and mortality between patients with de novo and acute-on-chronic HF-CS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this international observational study, patients with HF-CS from 16 tertiary care centres in five countries were enrolled between 2010 and 2021. To investigate differences in clinical presentation and 30-day mortality, adjusted logistic/Cox regression models were fitted. Patients (n = 1030) with HF-CS were analysed, of whom 486 (47.2%) presented with de novo HF-CS and 544 (52.8%) with acute-on-chronic HF-CS. Traditional markers of CS severity (e.g. blood pressure, heart rate and lactate) as well as use of treatments were comparable between groups. However, patients with acute-on-chronic HF-CS were more likely to have a higher CS severity and also a higher mortality risk, after adjusting for relevant confounders (de novo HF 45.5%, acute-on-chronic HF 55.9%, adjusted hazard ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.72, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

In this large HF-CS cohort, acute-on-chronic HF-CS was associated with more severe CS and higher mortality risk compared to de novo HF-CS, although traditional markers of CS severity and use of treatments were comparable. These findings highlight the vast heterogeneity of patients with HF-CS, emphasize that HF chronicity is a relevant disease modifier in CS, and indicate that future clinical trials should account for this.

PROGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE OF SERIAL DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIETY FOR CARDIOVASCULAR ANGIOGRAPHY AND INTERVENTIONS SHOCK CLASSIFICATION IN ADULTS WITH CRITICAL ILLNESS

ABSTRACT

Purpose: The aim of the study is to evaluate whether serial assessment of shock severity can improve prognostication in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective cohort of 21,461 ICU patient admissions from 2014 to 2018. We assigned the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Shock Stage in each 4-h block during the first 24 h of ICU admission; shock was defined as SCAI Shock stage C, D, or E. In-hospital mortality was evaluated using logistic regression. Results: The admission SCAI Shock stages were as follows: A, 39.0%; B, 27.0%; C, 28.9%; D, 2.6%; and E, 2.5%. The SCAI Shock stage subsequently increased in 30.6%, and late-onset shock developed in 30.4%. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients who had shock on admission (11.9%) or late-onset shock (7.3%) versus no shock (4.3%). Persistence of shock predicted higher mortality (adjusted OR = 1.09; 95% CI = 1.06-1.13, for each ICU block with shock). The mean SCAI Shock stage had higher discrimination for in-hospital mortality than the admission or maximum SCAI Shock stage. Dynamic modeling of the SCAI Shock classification improved discrimination for in-hospital mortality (C-statistic = 0.64-0.71). Conclusions: Serial application of the SCAI Shock classification provides improved mortality risk stratification compared with a single assessment on admission, facilitating dynamic prognostication.

Cardiogenic Shock: Pathogenesis, Classification, and Management

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening circulatory failure syndrome which can progress rapidly to irreversible multiorgan failure through self-perpetuating pathophysiological processes. Recent developments in CS classification have highlighted its etiologic, mechanistic, and hemodynamic heterogeneity. Optimal CS management depends on early recognition, rapid reversal of the underlying cause, and prompt initiation of hemodynamic support.

Application of Cardiogenic Shock Working Group-defined Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (CSWG-SCAI) Staging of Cardiogenic Shock to the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) database

BACKGROUND

The optimal parameters for defining stages of cardiogenic shock (CS) are not yet known. The Cardiogenic Shock Working Group-defined Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (CSWG-SCAI) staging of CS was developed to provide simple and specific parameters for risk-stratifying patients.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to test whether the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group-defined Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (CSWG-SCAI) staging is associated with in-hospital mortality, using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) database.

METHODS

We utilized the open-access MIMIC-IV database, which includes >300,000 patients admitted between 2008 and 2019. We extracted the clinical profile of patients admitted with CS and stratified them into different SCAI stages at admission based on the CSWG criteria. We then tested the association between in-hospital mortality and parameters of hypotension, hypoperfusion, and overall CSWG-SCAI stage.

RESULTS

Of the 2463 patients, CS was predominantly caused by heart failure (HF; 54.7 %) or myocardial infarction (MI; 26.3 %). Mortality was 37.5 % for the total cohort, 32.7 % for patients with HF, and 40 % for patients with MI (p < 0.001). Mortality was higher among patients with mean arterial pressure < 65 mmHg, lactate >2 mmol/L, ALT >200 IU/L, pH ≤ 7.2, and more than one drug/device support at baseline. Increasing CSWG-SCAI stages at baseline and maximum CSWG-SCAI stage achieved were significantly associated with in-hospital mortality (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The CSWG-SCAI stages are significantly associated with in-hospital mortality and may be used to identify hospitalized patients at risk of worsening cardiogenic shock severity.

CONDENSED ABSTRACT

We analyzed data from 2463 patients with cardiogenic shock using the MIMIC-IV database to investigate the relationship between the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group-defined Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (CSWG-SCAI) staging and in-hospital mortality. The main causes of cardiogenic shock were heart failure (54.7 %) and myocardial infarction (26.3 %). The overall mortality rate was 37.5 %, with a higher rate among patients with myocardial infarction (40 %) compared to those with heart failure (32.7 %). Mean arterial pressure < 65 mmHg, lactate >2 mmol/L, ALT >200 IU/L, and pH ≤ 7.2 were significantly associated with mortality. Increasing CSWG-SCAI stages at baseline and maximum achieved stages were strongly associated with higher mortality (p < 0.05). Therefore, the CSWG-SCAI staging system can be used to risk-stratify patients with cardiogenic shock.

Predicting Hemodynamic Changes During Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Support With a Longitudinal Evaluation

The use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has decreased in recent years due to negative outcome studies in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction, despite its favorable adverse-event profile. Acute hemodynamic response studies have identified potential super-responders with immediate improvements in cardiac index (CI) in heart failure patients. This single-center retrospective study aimed to predict CI and mean arterial pressure (MAP) changes throughout the entire duration of IABP support. The study analyzed 336 patients who received IABP between 2016 and 2022. Linear mixed-effect regression models were used to predict CI and MAP improvement during IABP support. The results showed that CI and MAP increases during the first days of support, and changes during IABP support varied with time and were associated with baseline parameters. Longitudinal CI change was associated with body surface area, baseline CI, baseline pulmonary artery pulsatility index, baseline need for pressors, and diabetes. Longitudinal MAP change was associated with baseline MAP, baseline heart rate, need for pressors, or inotropes. The study recommends considering these parameters when deciding if IABP is the most appropriate form of support for a specific patient. Further prospective studies are needed to validate the findings.

Early Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Stress-Induced Cardiomyopathy Receiving Acute Mechanical Support in the US

Background

The role of acute mechanical circulatory support (aMCS) in patients with stress-induced cardiomyopathy (SIC) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is not well studied. Here, we describe the incidence and outcomes of aMCS use in SIC-CS using a large national database.

Methods

Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database from January 2016 to November 2019, we identified patients hospitalized with SIC who received isolated intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), microaxial flow pump (Impella, Abiomed), or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) during the index hospitalization.

Results

A total of 902 among 94,709 hospitalizations for SIC (1.0%) required aMCS during the index hospitalization: 611 had IABP (67.7%), 189 had Impella (21.0%) and 102 had ECMO (11.3%). Patients with ECMO or Impella had higher in-hospital mortality rates than those with IABP (37.3% vs 29.1% vs 18.5%, respectively). There was an increased adjusted risk of in-hospital death with Impella (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.98; 95% CI, 1.12-3.49) and ECMO (aOR, 4.15; 95% CI, 1.85-9.32) vs IABP. Impella was associated with an increased adjusted risk of 30-day readmission compared to IABP (aOR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.16-5.51). Patients with ECMO or Impella had a higher incidence of renal replacement therapy and vascular/bleeding complications compared to those who received IABP.

Conclusions

In this nationwide analysis using an administrative database, patients who received ECMO and Impella showed higher rates of in-hospital mortality, renal replacement therapy, and vascular/bleeding complications compared to those who received IABP. Patients with more comorbidities may receive more aggressive hemodynamic support which may account for observed mortality differences. Future prospective studies with objective and universal characterization of baseline clinical and hemodynamic characteristics of patients with CS secondary to SIC are needed.

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.

Prospective Phenotyping of Right Ventricle Function Following Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Counterpulsation in Left Ventricular Assist Device Candidates: Outcomes and Predictors of Response

Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) may be applied to optimize advanced heart failure (AHF) patients and improve right ventricular (RV) function before left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. We aimed to evaluate the outcome of this intervention and define RV response predictors. Decompensated AHF patients, not eligible for LVAD because of poor RV function, who required IABP for stabilization were enrolled. Echocardiography and invasive hemodynamics were serially applied to determine fulfillment of prespecified "LVAD eligibility RV function" criteria (right atrium pressure [RA] <12 mm Hg, pulmonary artery pulsatility index [PAPi] >2.00, RA/pulmonary capillary wedge pressure [PCWP] <0.67, RV strain <-14.0%). Right ventricular-free wall tissue was harvested to assess interstitial fibrosis. Eighteen patients (12 male), aged 38 ± 14 years were supported with IABP for 55 ± 51 (3-180) days. In 11 (61.1%), RV improved and fulfilled the prespecified criteria, while seven (38.9%) showed no substantial improvement. Histopathology revealed an inverse correlation between RV interstitial fibrosis and functional benefit following IABP: interstitial fibrosis correlated with post-IABP RA ( r = 0.63, p = 0.037), RA/PCWP ( r = 0.87, p = 0.001), PAPi ( r = -0.83, p = 0.003). Conclusively, IABP improves RV function in certain AHF patients facilitating successful LVAD implantation. Right ventricular interstitial fibrosis quantification may be applied to predict response and guide preoperative patient selection and optimization. http://links.lww.com/ASAIO/A995.