Coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiac arrest patients without return of spontaneous circulation

Beyond one-size-fits-all in cardiogenic shock: impella, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or tailored use of mechanical circulatory support?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article offers an overview of recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the efficacy of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) and microaxial flow pump (mAFP) in treating cardiogenic shock, including findings from the DanGer shock trial. It summarizes the clinical implications and limitations of these studies and key decision-making considerations for cardiogenic shock device use.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite important limitations in all published RCTs, the routine use of VA ECMO for acute myocardial infarction related cardiogenic shock did not demonstrate benefit and should be reserved for selected patients with extreme forms of cardiogenic shock. Conversely, mAFP (Impella CP) appears promising for cardiogenic shock due to ST elevation myocardial infarction. A stepwise approach - initial mAFP use for cardiogenic shock with left ventricular failure, supplemented by VA ECMO if mAFP is inadequate or if severe right ventricular failure is present - may be preferable, but requires validation through RCTs. High complication rates in device arms underscore the need for careful patient selection, preventive strategies, education for centers and operators, and further research.

SUMMARY

Recent trials offer insights into mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock, but their real-world applicability is limited. Despite potential benefits, the use of VA ECMO and mAFP is associated with significant complication rates, emphasizing the need for personalized use.

Effect of intra-arrest transport, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation and immediate invasive assessment in refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a long-term follow-up of the Prague OHCA trial

BACKGROUND

Randomized data evaluating the impact of the extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) approach on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) are lacking. The objective of this follow-up study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of the ECPR-based versus CCPR approach.

METHODS

The Prague OHCA trial was a single-center, randomized, open-label trial. Patients with witnessed refractory OHCA of presumed cardiac origin, without return of spontaneous circulation, were randomized during ongoing resuscitation on scene to conventional CPR (CCPR) or an ECPR-based approach (intra-arrest transport, ECPR if ROSC is not achieved prehospital and immediate invasive assessment).

RESULTS

From March 2013 to October 2020, 264 patients were randomized during ongoing resuscitation on scene, and 256 patients were enrolled. Long-term follow-up was performed 5.3 (interquartile range 3.8-7.2) years after initial randomization and was completed in 255 of 256 patients (99.6%). In total, 34/123 (27.6%) patients in the ECPR-based group and 26/132 (19.7%) in the CCPR group were alive (log-rank P = 0.01). There were no significant differences between the treatment groups in the neurological outcome, survival after hospital discharge, risk of hospitalization, major cardiovascular events and quality of life. Of long-term survivors, 1/34 (2.9%) in the ECPR-based arm and 1/26 (3.8%) in the CCPR arm had poor neurological outcome (both patients had a cerebral performance category score of 3).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with refractory OHCA, the ECPR-based approach significantly improved long-term survival. There were no differences in the neurological outcome, major cardiovascular events and quality of life between the groups, but the trial was possibly underpowered to detect a clinically relevant difference in these outcomes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01511666, Registered 19 January 2012.

Coronary angiography findings in resuscitated and refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Coronary angiography (CAG) frequently reveals coronary artery disease (CAD) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), but its use is not standardized and often reported in different subpopulations. This systematic review and meta-analysis accurately describes angiographic features in resuscitated and refractory OHCA.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to October 31, 2022. Studies reporting coronary angiography findings after OHCA were considered eligible. The primary outcome was location and rate of coronary lesions. Coronary angiography findings with 95% confidence intervals were pooled with a meta-analysis of proportion.

RESULTS

128 studies (62,845 patients) were included. CAG, performed in 69% (63-75%) of patients, found a significant CAD in 75% (70-79%), a culprit lesion in 63% (59-66%), and a multivessel disease in 46% (41-51%). Compared to patients with return of spontaneous circulation, refractory OHCA was associated with more severe CAD due to a higher rate of left main involvement (17% [12-24%] vs 5.7% [3.1-10%]; p = 0.002) and acute occlusion of left anterior descending artery (27% [17-39%] vs 15% [13-18%]; p = 0.02). Nonshockable patients without ST-elevation were those receiving CAG less frequently, despite significant disease in 54% (31-76%). Left anterior descending artery was the most frequently involved (34% [30-39%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with OHCA have a high prevalence of significant CAD caused by acute and treatable coronary lesions. Refractory OHCA was associated with more severe coronary lesions. CAD was also present in patients with nonshockable rhythm and without ST elevation. However, heterogeneity of studies and selection of patients undergoing CAG limit the certainty of findings.