Early revascularization in cardiogenic shock--a positive view of a negative trial

Outcome of the Impella Device for Acute Mechanical Circulatory Support

Objective

The contribution of cardiogenic shock to in-hospital mortality has not decreased significantly despite prompt revascularization, advances in medical therapy, and mechanical circulatory support. For patients in cardiogenic shock, mechanical circulatory support has been provided by a variety of devices. We report the outcome of the Impella device for acute mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock in a setting of a large-volume single institution. The primary end points include survival to 30 days and recovery of native heart function and survival to 90 days and 1 year. The secondary end points include device complications.

Methods

We performed a retrospective chart review of 36 consecutive patients who underwent placement of the Impella device from February 6, 2006, to December 31, 2010. The charts were evaluated for data relative to the patients’ demographics, hemodynamics, operative details, 30-day outcome including the patients’ native heart function recovery, and 90-day and 1-year survival.

Results

Thirty-six consecutive patients were included in our study. The mean ± SD age was 60.3 ± 13 years, and 69% were men. The indication for placement of the Impella device included postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock in 23 patients (64%), acute myocardial infarction complicated with cardiogenic shock in 10 patients (28%), acute decompensated ischemic cardiomyopathy in 2 patients (6%), and myocarditis with cardiogenic shock in 1 patient (3%). The mean ± SD duration of the Impella support was 4.5 ± 3.9 days (range, 1–18). The 30-day survival rate was 72% (26/36), and, of those, 96% (25/26) recovered their native heart function and one (4%) was bridged to long-term left ventricular assist device (HeartMate II; Thoratec, Inc, Pleasanton, CA USA). The 90-day and 1-year survival was 64% and 61%, respectively.

Conclusions

The Impella devices yielded a very favorable outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock.

Cardiogenic shock complicating acute coronary syndromes: insights from the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events

INTRODUCTION

Despite advances in the management of patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the leading cause of death in these patients. The objective of this observational study was to describe the characteristics, management, and hospital outcomes of patients with an ACS complicated by CS. Our secondary study objective was to describe trends in the incidence and hospital case-fatality rates (CFRs) of CS and predictors of increased hospital mortality in these high-risk patients.

METHODS

The population consisted of patients enrolled in the GRACE study between 1999 and 2007 who were hospitalized with an ACS.

RESULTS

During the years under study, 2,992 patients (4.6%) developed CS. Patients with CS were more likely to be older, have a history of diabetes or atrial fibrillation, and present with a higher pulse rate or cardiac arrest. Cardiac catheterization was performed on 1,706 (57%) and in-hospital revascularization on 1,408 patients (47%) with CS. Patients with CS were less likely to receive evidence-based cardiac medications compared with patients who did not develop CS. The in-hospital CFR of patients with CS was 59.4%, compared with 2.3% in those who did not develop CS. Factors associated with an increased risk of dying in patients with CS included advanced age, diabetes mellitus, angina, and stroke. Adjusted incidence rates and hospital CFRs of CS showed modest declines over time.

CONCLUSION

Continued efforts are needed to reduce the incidence and CFRs of CS complicating ACS.

Clinical review: mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction

Acute myocardial infarction is one of the 10 leading reasons for admission to adult critical care units. In-hospital mortality for this condition has remained static in recent years, and this is related primarily to the development of cardiogenic shock. Recent advances in reperfusion therapies have had little impact on the mortality of cardiogenic shock. This may be attributable to the underutilization of life support technology that may assist or completely supplant the patient's own cardiac output until adequate myocardial recovery is established or long-term therapy can be initiated. Clinicians working in the intensive care environment are increasingly likely to be exposed to these technologies. The purpose of this review is to outline the various techniques of mechanical circulatory support and discuss the latest evidence for their use in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.

Predictors of outcome after percutaneous treatment for cardiogenic shock

OBJECTIVES

To determine predictors of outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a cohort of 113 patients undergoing emergency coronary angiography and attempted PCI for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction in a regional cardiothoracic unit.

RESULTS

In-hospital mortality was 51% (58 patients). Adverse outcome was associated with previous myocardial infarction, age over 70 years, cardiogenic shock complicating failure to respond to thrombolytic treatment (failed thrombolysis), and multivessel coronary artery disease. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the first three factors were independent predictors of in-hospital death with odds ratios of 5.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.85 to 14.69), 4.02 (95% CI 1.14 to 14.12), and 3.78 (95% CI 1.43 to 9.96), respectively.

CONCLUSION

About 50% of patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing a strategy of urgent coronary angiography and PCI survive to hospital discharge. Survivors do well in the subsequent six months. Emergency PCI for cardiogenic shock reduces mortality from an expected 80% to about 50%. Clinical features can help determine which patients are most likely to gain from urgent coronary angiography and attempted PCI. Alternative strategies are needed to improve the outcome of patients who fare badly.

Impact of stents and abciximab on survival from cardiogenic shock treated with percutaneous coronary intervention

This retrospective observational review compares patient characteristics and in-hospital and long-term outcomes of cohorts of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (MI) prior to the use of stents (as well as glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor and dual-antiplatelet therapy) with PCI in the stent era. Cardiogenic shock remains the leading cause of hospital mortality from acute MI. This is a report of consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute MI, without mechanical complication, referred for emergency catheterization to a single operator at two consecutive Veterans Affairs medical centers over a 15-year period (1988 to August 2003). PCI was attempted in all 93 cases: 44 consecutive patients in the present era and 49 consecutive patients in the stent era. Patients with comparable extent of coronary disease, more ST elevation myocardial infarction, multiple areas of infarction, and greater comorbidity underwent PCI in the stent era. Nevertheless, PCI in the stent era was associated with higher rates of acute success and improved in-hospital survival. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank testing showed highly significant improvement in overall survival (P < 0.0001). Logistic regression of in-hospital survival demonstrated that stent use (colinear with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa use and dual-antiplatelet therapy) was significantly associated with survival in a model adjusting for extent of coronary disease and comorbidities (P = 0.007). Stents and abciximab have been associated with improved acute angiographic and procedural success of PCI for cardiogenic shock, leading to improved survival.

Ischemia, reperfusion, and the role of surgery in the treatment of cardiogenic shock secondary to acute myocardial infarction: an interpretative review

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is the leading cause of death for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Despite contemporary management of AMI, the incidence of shock due to left ventricular failure has not declined and its mortality continues to be in excess of 50%. Furthermore, the role and indications of the different means of acute revascularization remain unclear. Recent observational and randomized studies have shown improved survival in patients acutely revascularized by either percutaneous interventions or conventional surgery, particularly in patients younger than 75 years of age. Current guidelines recommend surgical revascularization in selected patients with multiple vessel disease who develop shock due to progressive ischemia of the remote myocardium up to 18 h from the onset of shock. However, patients with single-vessel disease who develop shock as a consequence of the initial infarction can only be helped if revascularization is achieved during the first 4 to 6 h after the occlusion of the infarct related artery, preferable by percutaneous techniques. Not all ischemic myocytes become irreversibly injured at the same time. Due to variability in the distribution of collateral flow, there is great variability in the severity of ischemia. Myocytes can exhibit different metabolic responses including hibernation, ischemic preconditioning, stunning, reperfusion injury, and necrosis. Precise knowledge of these biochemical and metabolic changes that take place in the myocardium after arterial occlusion and following reperfusion is paramount to the understanding of the indications for acute revascularization, the implementation of the different management strategies to enhance myocardial preservation and recovery, and the role of circulatory support in these exceedingly sick patients.

New recommendations from the 1999 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association acute myocardial infarction guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To review literature relating to significant changes in drug therapy recommendations in the 1999 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for treating patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

DATA SOURCES

1999 ACC/AHA AMI guidelines, English-language clinical trials, reviews, and editorials researching the role of drug therapy and primary angioplasty for AMI that were referenced in the guidelines were included. Additional data published in 2000 or unpublished were also included if relevant to interpretation of the guidelines.

STUDY SELECTION

The articles selected influence AMI treatment recommendations.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Many clinicians and health systems use the ACC/AHA AMI guidelines to develop treatment plans for AMI patients. This review highlights important changes in AMI drug therapy recommendations by reviewing the results of recent clinical trials. Insights into evolving drug therapy strategies that may impact future guideline development are also described.

CONCLUSIONS

Several changes in drug therapy recommendations were included in the 1999 AMI ACC/AHA guidelines. There is emphasis on administering fibrin-specific thrombolytics secondary to enhanced efficacy. Selection between fibrin-specific agents is unclear at this time. Low response rates to thrombolytics have been noted in the elderly, women, patients with heart failure, and those showing left bundle-branch block on the electrocardiogram. These patient groups should be targeted for improved utilization programs. The use of glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors in non-ST-segment elevation MI was emphasized. Small trials combining reduced doses of thrombolytics with GP IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors have shown promise by increasing reperfusion rates without increasing bleeding risk, but firm conclusions cannot be made until the results of larger trials are known. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) trials suggest lower mortality rates for primary PCI when compared with thrombolysis alone. However, primary PCI, including coronary angioplasty, is only available at approximately 13% of US hospitals, making thrombolysis the preferred strategy for most patients. Clopidogrel has supplanted ticlopidine as the recommended antiplatelet agent for patients with aspirin allergy or intolerance following reports of a better safety profile. The recommended dose of unfractionated heparin is lower than previously recommended, necessitating a separate nomogram for patients with acute coronary syndromes. Routine use of warfarin, either alone or in combination with aspirin, is not supported by clinical trials; however, warfarin remains a choice for antithrombotic therapy in patients intolerant to aspirin. Beta-adrenergic receptor blockers continue to be recommended, and emphasis is placed on improving rates of early administration (during hospitalization), even in patients with moderate left ventricular dysfunction. New recommendations for drug treatment of post-AMI patients with low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and/or elevated triglycerides are included, with either niacin or gemfibrozil recommended as an option. Supplementary antioxidants are not recommended for either primary or secondary prevention of AMI, with new data demonstrating lack of efficacy vitamin E in primary prevention. Estrogen replacement therapy or hormonal replacement therapy should not be initiated solely for prevention of cardiovascular disease, but can be continued in cardiovascular patients already taking long-term therapy for other reasons. Bupropion has been added as a new treatment option for smoking cessation. As drug therapy continues to evolve in treating AMI, more frequent updates of therapy guidelines will be necessary.