Cardiogenic shock: to pump or not to pump?

Nomogram for Predicting In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock after Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background

Mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) remains high. However, the real-world risk factors for mortality in these patients are poorly defined.

Objective

The aim of this study is to establish a clinical prognostic nomogram for predicting in-hospital mortality after primary PCI in STEMI patients with CS.

Methods

This retrospective, multicenter, observational study included STEMI patients with CS who underwent PCI at 39 hospitals in Hebei Province from January 2018 to December 2019. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to identify the factors associated with in-hospital mortality. These factors were then incorporated into a nomogram and its performance was evaluated by discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility.

Results

This study included 274 patients, among whom 179 died in hospital. Sex, random blood glucose on admission, ejection fraction after PCI, no-reflow, and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) were independently associated with in-hospital mortality (all P < 0.05). In the training set, the nomogram showed a C-index of 0.819, goodness-of-fit of 0.08, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.819 (95%CI = 0.759–0.879). In the testing set, the C-index was 0.842, goodness-of-fit was 0.585, and AUC was 0.842 (95%CI = 0.715–0.970). The results indicate that the nomogram had good discrimination and good prediction accuracy and could achieve a good net benefit.

Conclusion

We established and validated a nomogram that provided individual prediction of in-hospital mortality for STEMI patients with CS after PCI in a Chinese population.

Association of Lymphocyte to Monocyte Ratio and Risk of in-Hospital Mortality in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: A Propensity Score Matching Study

Background

Lymphocyte to monocyte ratio (LMR) has been long implicated in the prediction of many inflammatory-related diseases. However, the possible value as prognostic marker of LMR have not been evaluated in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients. The aim of the study was to assess the relationship between LMR on admission and in-hospital mortality in CS patients.

Methods

Data on patients diagnosed with CS were extracted from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV (MIMIC-IV) database. We performed a single-institution, retrospective study of 1487 CS patients and determined the optimal cut-off for LMR by X-tile software. Propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probabilities of treatment weighting (IPTW) were conducted to control confounders. Cox proportional hazards model was performed to evaluate the relationship between LMR and in-hospital mortality. Kaplan-Meier curves and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis were applied to assess the prognostic value of LMR.

Results

The optimal cut-off value for LMR was 0.9. Cox proportional hazards model demonstrated that lower LMR (< 0.9) was independently associated with in-hospital mortality with hazard ratio (HR) of 1.40 (1.12-1.74, P = 0.003). The results were consistent with survival analyses (P < 0.001, Log rank test). Adding LMR< 0.9 to the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score improved discrimination and risk stratification for in-hospital mortality.

Conclusion

Lower level of LMR is related to higher risk of in-hospital mortality of patients with CS. As an easily available biomarker, LMR can independently predict the in-hospital mortality in CS patients.

Inotropic Agents and Vasopressors in the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, cardiogenic shock (CS) is the leading cause of death in patients admitted with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). CS is characterised by reduced cardiac output secondary to systolic dysfunction which can lead to multi-organ failure. The mainstay of medical treatment in CS are inotropes and vasopressors to improve cardiac output. However, current clinical guidelines do not direct clinicians as to which agents to use and in what combinations. This article aims to review the current evidence on the management of CS with a major focus on the use of inotropes and vasopressors.

METHOD

A literature review was conducted analysing published literature from the following databases: PubMed, MedLine, Cochrane Library and Embase, as well as a manual search of articles that were deemed relevant. Relevant articles were identified by using keywords such as "cardiogenic shock".

RESULTS

Literature was assessed to review the use of inotropes and vasopressors in CS. Dopamine and adrenaline were associated with increased mortality and arrhythmias. Dobutamine was associated with an improvement in cardiac output, at the determinant of causing arrhythmias. Conversely, noradrenaline was associated with a lower likelihood of arrhythmias and most importantly decreased mortality in CS. Compared to other inotropes, levosimendan appears to have a better safety profile and is associated with decreased mortality in CS, particularly when combined with a vasopressor. Our literature review suggests that treatment combination of the inotrope levosimendan with the vasopressor noradrenaline may be the most effective management option in CS.

Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation in extensive myocardial infarction with persistent ischemia: The SEMPER FI pilot study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to prospectively investigate intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) support in large myocardial infarction complicated by persistent ischemia after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

BACKGROUND

Use of IABP is suggested to be effective by increasing diastolic aortic pressure, thereby improving coronary blood flow. This can only be expected with exhausted coronary autoregulation, typical in acute myocardial infarction complicated by persistent ischemia. In this situation, augmented diastolic pressure is expected to increase myocardial oxygenation.

METHODS

One hundred patients with large STEMI complicated by persistent ischemia after primary PCI were randomized to treatment with or without IABP therapy on top of standard care. IABP support was initiated following primary PCI, immediately after inclusion. Primary end point was all-cause mortality, need for (additional) mechanical hemodynamic support, or readmission for heart failure within 6 months.

RESULTS

Mean age was 63 ± 10 years, 76% were male. Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure were 120 ± 25 mmHg and 73 ± 17 mmHg. Mean heart rate was 75 ± 18 mmHg. Before PCI, mean summed ST-deviation was 21 ± 8 mm with only minimal ST-resolution after PCI. One patient in the IABP group reached the primary end point versus four patients in the control group (2% vs. 8%; p = 0.16). After primary PCI, resolution of ST-deviation was significantly more pronounced in the IABP group (73 ± 17%) compared to the control group (56 ± 26%; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In this pilot study, in patients with large STEMI and persistent ischemia after primary PCI, use of IABP showed a nonsignificant decrease in mortality, necessity for (additional) mechanical hemodynamic support or readmission for heart failure at 6 months, and resulted in more rapid ST-resolution.

Percutaneous left ventricular assist device vs . intra‐aortic balloon pump in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing cardiovascular intervention: A meta‐analysis

Objective

Although controversial, the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and percutaneous left ventricular assist device (PLVAD) are widely used for initial hemodynamic stabilization. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of these two devices in patients with severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials, and reference lists of relevant articles were searched. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model.

Results

The quantitative analysis included 4 RCTs and 2 observational studies. A total of 348 patients received PLVAD and 340 received IABP. Meta-analysis revealed that early mortality rates (in-hospital or 30-day) did not differ between the PLVAD and IABP groups (relative risk (RR) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.70–1.51, P = 0.89). Significant differences were observed between the two groups in the composite, in-hospital, non-major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) rate (RR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.01–1.68, P = 0.04).

Conclusions

Compared with IABP, PLVAD with active circulatory support did not improve early survival in those with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing either PCI or VT ablation, but increased the in-hospital non-MACCE rate.

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.

Predictors of In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Complicated With Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicated with cardiogenic shock (CS) remains as an unresolved condition causing high morbidity and mortality despite advances in medical treatment and coronary intervention procedures. In the current study, we evaluated the predictors of in-hospital mortality of STEMI complicated with CS.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we evaluated the predictive value of baseline characteristics, angiographic, echocardiographic and laboratory parameters on in-hospital mortality of 319 patients with STEMI complicated with CS who were treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were divided into two groups consisting of survivors and non-survivors during their index hospitalisation period.

RESULTS

The mortality rate was found to be 61.3% in the study population. At multivariate analysis after adjustment for the parameters detected in univariate analysis, chronic renal failure, Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) post percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) ≤2, plasma glucose and lactate level, blood urea nitrogen level, Tricuspid Annular Plane Systolic Excursion (TAPSE) and ejection fraction were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Apart from haemodynamic deterioration, angiographic, echocardiographic and laboratory parameters have an impact on in-hospital mortality in patients with STEMI complicated with CS.

[Cardiogenic shock : Current evidence]

This CME article addresses the pathophysiology, incidence, current survival outcome and treatment options for patients with cardiogenic shock as a complication of acute myocardial infarction. The shock spiral of left heart failure due to cardiac infarction, subsequent vasoconstriction and paradoxical vasodilation due to the systemic inflammation response syndrome (SIRS) is a vicious circle which must be interrupted. Treatment focuses on the evidence from randomized clinical trials and the current guideline recommendations. With respect to interventional and surgical treatment the question of culprit lesion vs. complete revascularization is still unsolved. For medicinal treatment acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and heparin are more often supplemented with prasugrel and ticagrelor. In the case of inotropes, dobutamine remains the first-line treatment option and for vasopressors norepinephrine. The calcium sensitizer levosimendan has not provided the hoped for superiority over conventional treatment in randomized trials. The use of intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) is no longer recommended as circulatory support in acute heart failure (reduced to class III). The use of percutaneous implantable mechanical circulatory support devices has not shown a survival benefit in the few randomized trials carried out so far even when compared with IABP, due to increased bleeding complications.

[Cardiac support and replacement systems]

In recent years, the widespread use of partial mechanical cardiac support and even temporary complete replacement of cardiac function has been established in many intensive care units in the treatment of refractory cardiogenic shock. There is a difference between partial left-ventricular assist devices (LVAD) and the possibility of complete heart (and lung) replacement by extra corporeal life support (ECLS). Despite the use of mechanical support devices, the mortality of cardiogenic shock remains high. The consideration of using percutaneous LVAD and ECLS in cardiogenic shock should be considered in refractory cardiogenic shock patients in addition to support by catecholamines and after early revascularization in acute coronary syndromes. However, there are no large randomized studies evaluating mechanical support systems with respect to outcome in cardiogenic shock patients. German and international guidelines do not recommend the routine use of mechanical support as a first-line treatment in cardiogenic shock patients and emphasize that their application should be restricted to patients with therapy refractory shock. In other cases of noninfarct-related cardiogenic shock (e. g., poisoning, myocarditis), ECLS use should be considered as bridging therapy. ECLS may also be considered in cardiopulmonary resuscitation which is termed E‑CPR. According to registry data, E‑CPR may reduce mortality in selected patients. A possible application of ECLS is severe accidental hypothermia with cardiac arrest despite limited data. In these rare cases, early ECLS should be considered for rewarming and stabilization.

Usefulness of Intra-aortic Balloon Pump Counterpulsation

Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation is the most widely used mechanical circulatory support device because of its ease of use, low complication rate, and fast manner of insertion. Its benefit is still subject of debate, and a considerable gap exists between guidelines and clinical practice. Retrospective nonrandomized studies and animal experiments show benefits of IABP therapy. However, recent large randomized trials do not show benefit of IABP therapy, which has led to a downgrading in the guidelines. In our view, this dichotomy between trials and practice might be the result of insufficient understanding of the prerequisites needed for effective IABP therapy, that is, exhausted autoregulation, and of not including the right patient population in trials. The population included in recent large randomized trials has been heterogeneous, also including patients in whom benefit of IABP could not be expected. The clinical condition in which most benefit is expected, that is persistent ischemia in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction, is discussed in this review. In conclusion, this review aims to explain the physiological principles needed for effective IABP therapy, to reflect critically on the large randomized trials, and to solve some of the controversies in this field.

[Mechanical support in cardiogenic shock]

Treatment of patients in cardiogenic shock (CS) presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is still a challenge and mortality rates remain high, approaching 50 %. Hemodynamic stabilization before and/or after early revascularization remains the primary goal in these patients. In addition to hemodynamic support by inotropes and vasopressors, support with mechanical devices such as intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP), percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) and complete extracorporeal life support (ECLS) with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may be considered. The use of IABP cannot be recommended anymore on a routine basis. Unfortunately, there are no large randomized data from studies evaluating treatment with mechanical support systems compared to standard treatment with respect to the clinical outcome of patients and no head-to-head comparison of different devices is available. Another important open question to be answered is which subgroups of patients may have a benefit from LVAD therapy. Guidelines discourage the routine use of mechanical support as a first-line treatment in CS patients and emphasize that the application should be restricted to those patients with refractory shock. This article gives an overview of the different devices for percutaneous mechanical support in CS and describes the available evidence and guideline recommendations.

Is Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Counterpulsation Sufficient to Treat Patients in Cardiogenic Shock, Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background

A high number of patients do not survive primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS), even when assisted with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation. There is no accepted consensus on who may most benefit from IABP counterpulsation, although previous retrospective studies have reported predictors of survival for patients undergoing PCI and cardiac surgery. To date, a risk model for emergency primary PCI patients has not been ascertained. The objective of this study was to identify independent predictors for in-hospital survival, to create a standardized risk model to predict patients who may require IABP insertion during primary PCI.

Method

Retrospective data were from 165 patients who had undergone primary PCI with IABP due to CS complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI), from September 2007 to 2010, and underwent logistic regression analysis, to evaluate the incremental risk factors associated with survival.

Results

The overall in-hospital mortality was 32.1% (53 patients). The incremental independent predictors for in-hospital survival were: patient age of less than 60 years (OR: 0.303, 95% CI: 0.11 - 0.83, P < 0.02) and the use of IABP support alone, as opposed to in adjunction with inotropic support (OR: 3.177, 95% CI: 1.159 - 8.708, P < 0.025).

Conclusion

This study illustrated an age of less than 60 years, and the use of IABP alone, to be independent predictors of in-hospital survival in patients with CS complicating AMI who undergo primary PCI assisted by IABP. No specific risk model could be determined.

Shock management in acute myocardial infarction

AIMS

This manuscript outlines the treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI), focusing on new therapeutic strategies from the interventional cardiologist's perspective.

METHODS AND RESULTS

CS is a life-threatening complication of AMI occurring in 10% of AMI patients. It can be defined as a state of critical tissue and end-organ hypoperfusion due to reduced cardiac contractility. Early revascularisation is the most important therapeutic measure. Its widespread use has caused a decline in the incidence of CS. However, despite optimal treatment, the mortality rate of CS is still approaches 50%. It is now understood that CS not only involves the heart but the whole circulatory system. In order to increase the survival rates of CS patients, the right decisions have to be taken regarding the optimal revascularisation strategy, treatment with inotropes and vasopressors, mechanical left ventricular support, management of multiorgan dysfunction syndrome, additional intensive care treatment, triage among alternative hospital care levels, and allocation of clinical resources.

CONCLUSIONS

CS mortality remains unacceptably high. In the light of very limited evidence regarding most treatment modalities, there is a clear need for adequately designed studies in order to answer the numerous unsettled issues.

Gender differences in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II-trial

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is associated with high mortality. Previous studies regarding gender-specific differences in CS are conflicting and there are insufficient data for the presence of gender-associated differences in the contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention era. Aim of this study was therefore to investigate gender-specific differences in a large cohort of AMI patients with CS undergoing contemporary treatment.

METHODS

In the randomized Intra-aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) trial, 600 patients with CS complicating AMI undergoing early revascularization were assigned to therapy with or without intra-aortic balloon pump. We compared sex-specific differences in these patients with regard to baseline and procedural characteristics as well as short- and long-term clinical outcome.

RESULTS

Of 600 patients 187 (31%) were female. Women were significantly older than men and had a significantly lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure at presentation (p < 0.05 for all). Diabetes mellitus and hypertension were more frequent in women, whereas smoking was more frequent in men (p < 0.05 for all). Women showed a higher mortality within the first day after randomization (p = 0.004). However, after multivariable adjustment this numerical difference was no longer statistically significant. No gender-related differences in clinical outcome were observed after 1, 6 and 12 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In this large-scale multicenter study in patients with CS complicating AMI, women had a worse-risk profile in comparison to men. No significant gender-related differences in treatment as well as short- and long-term outcome were observed.

First experiences with a combined usage of veno-arterial and veno-venous ECMO in therapy-refractory cardiogenic shock patients with cerebral hypoxemia

The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is becoming a popular tool in the treatment of cardiogenic shock. We present two case reports where classical veno-arterial peripherally cannulated ECMO therapy proved insufficient with profuse cerebral hypoxemia. After augmenting the setting into veno-veno-arterial ECMO, we achieved a remarkable improvement of all oxygenation parameters. The simultaneous use of veno-venous and veno-arterial ECMO might display as a novel strategy to counteract the coronary and cerebral hypoxemia in veno-arterial ECMO therapy in patients with therapy-refractory cardiogenic shock or in combined cardiopulmonary failure. In this manuscript, the veno-veno-arterial ECMO setup is described in full detail and different venous cannulas are discussed.

Cardiogenic Shock and the ICU Patient

Cardiogenic shock is one of the most important complications of acute myocardial infarction (MI) and acute left ventricular failure (LVF). It threatens the life of 5–10% of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) particularly in the presence of inappropriately low peripheral vascular resistance. Cardiogenic shock results in poor tissue perfusion, end-organ damage and carries a high mortality risk. The goal of therapy is to prevent end-organ dysfunction and severe metabolic derangement by raising mean arterial blood pressure, which is achieved with the use of inotropes and vasopressors, often at the expense of tachycardia, elevated myocardial oxygen consumption and extended myocardial ischaemia. Current therapeutic approaches include early coronary artery revascularisation (which has significantly improved the survival rate), fluid resuscitation, inotropic support and mechanical circulatory support using intra-aortic balloon pumps or ventricular assist devices. In this article, we review the pathophysiology, diagnosis and management of cardiogenic shock.

The outcome of intra-aortic balloon pump support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock according to the type of revascularization: a comprehensive meta-analysis

AIMS

Despite the recommendations of the current guidelines, scientific evidence continue to challenge the effectiveness of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock. Moreover, 2 recent meta-analyses showed contrasting results. The aim of this study is to test the effect of IABP according to the type of therapeutic treatment of AMI: percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), thrombolytic therapy (TT), or medical therapy without reperfusion. Articles published from January 1, 1986, to December 31, 2012, were collected and analyzed by meta-analysis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We evaluated the IABP impact on inhospital mortality, on safety end points (stroke, severe bleeding) and long-term survival, using risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) estimates. We found that the risk of death was (i) not significantly different between the IABP and control groups (RR 0.95, P = .52; RD -0.04, P = .28), (ii) significantly reduced in the TT subgroup (RR 0.77, P < .0001; RD -0.16, P < .0001), and (iii) significantly increased in the PCI subgroup (RR 1.18, P = .01; RD 0.07, P = .01). There were no significant differences in secondary end points (P, not significant). In addition, we compared the meta-analyses collected over the same search period.

CONCLUSION

The results show that IABP support is significantly effective in TT reperfusion but is associated with a significant increase of the inhospital mortality with primary PCI. The comparison of the meta-analyses demonstrates the key role of analysing primary clinical treatments to avoid systematic errors.

Transradial percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Use of the transradial approach (TRA) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has increased in recent years. TRA has a lower mortality rate than the transfemoral approach (TFA) in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Comparative studies have systematically excluded patients with cardiogenic shock (CS).

METHODS

We performed a prospective, observational registry study of consecutive patients undergoing emergent revascularization between February 2007 and January 2012. An analysis of the clinical evolution of patients with CS during hospitalization was performed.

RESULTS

Of 1,400 emergency procedures, 122 had CS, of which 80 underwent PCI by TRA (65.6%) and 42 underwent PCI by TFA (34.3%). The main reason for choosing TFA was the absence of radial pulse (54.9%). Mortality (64.3% vs 32.5%, P = .001), serious access site complications (11.9% vs 2.5%, P = .03), access site complications requiring blood transfusion (7.1% vs 0%, P = .04), and major adverse cardiac events (death, infarction, stroke, serious bleeding, and postanoxic encephalopathy) (73.8% vs 43.8%, P = .001) were greater in patients treated by TFA. In the multivariate analysis, TRA was a predictor of mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.39 [0.15-0.97]); other predictive factors were age ≥75 years (3.47 [1.35-8.92]), previous treatment with diuretics (3.67 [1.21-11.12]), and success of the procedure (0.07 [0.02-0.24]).

CONCLUSIONS

Transradial approach for PCI is possible and safe in up to two-thirds of patients with CS. Absence of radial pulse was the main factor preventing use of TRA. In multivariate analysis, TRA was associated with a lower risk of mortality.

[Ischaemic cardiogenic shock. Where do we stand in 2012?]

With a stable frequency (about 5% of acute coronary syndromes) and a mortality of nearly 45%, cardiogenic shock (CS), especially when it occurs in the immediate waning of myocardial infarction, still represents a therapeutic challenge. In this review, will be detailed the actual epidemiologic data of CS, its physiopathology and the different modalities of treatments available to the interventional cardiologist, especially the coronary revascularisation and the percutaneous left ventricular assistance, whether by intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation or by more complex systems.

Cardiogenic Shock in Women

Cardiogenic shock (CS) describes the physiologic state in which reduced cardiac output and resultant tissue hypoxia occur in the presence of adequate intravascular volume. Among patients hospitalized with myocardial infarction (MI), CS is the foremost cause of death. Women are more susceptible to CS than men in the setting of ST segment increase MI. Introduction of early revascularization strategies and mechanical ventricular support have seen a decrease in short-term mortality from CS. However, the prognosis following CS remains poor. This article examines the prevalence, causes, pathophysiology, and therapeutic options for CS among women.

Use and impact of intra-aortic balloon pump on mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results of the Euro Heart Survey on PCI

AIMS

The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is recommended by current guidelines as adjunct in patients with cardiogenic shock, despite the lack of larger clinical trials. We sought to investigate the use and impact on mortality of IABP in current practice of percutaneous coronary interventions in Europe.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between May 2005 and April 2008 a total of 47,407 consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 176 centres in 33 countries in Europe and the Mediterranean basin were enrolled into the registry. From these, 8,102 had ST-elevation myocardial infarction and 7,999 non-ST elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock was observed in 7.9% and 2.1%, respectively. Of the 653 patients with cardiogenic shock 25% were treated with an IABP. In-hospital mortality, with and without IABP, was 56.9% and 36.1%. In the multivariate analysis the use of IABP was not associated with an improved survival (odds ratio 1.47; 95% CI 0.97-2.21, p=0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

In current clinical practice in Europe, IABP is used only in one quarter of patients with cardiogenic shock treated with primary PCI. However, there was no hint of a beneficial effect of IABP on outcome. Therefore, a large randomised clinical trial is urgently needed to define the role of IABP in patients with PCI for shock.

Left main coronary artery transradial rescue percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock with Impella ventricular mechanical support

Mechanical ventricular assist support and especially Impella device that is implanted via femoral access are considered a cornerstone in the therapeutic arsenal of the management of cardiogenic shock. Indeed, the potent antithrombotic agents administered during acute coronary syndromes constitute potential bleeding risk factors. Transradial interventions are nowadays widely used in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients. However, some operators feel uncomfortable with the transradial approach when facing cardiogenic shock. We report a case of transradial rescue percutaneous intervention for cardiogenic shock in a young man with support of an Impella device via femoral access.

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.

Shock in acute myocardial infarction: the Cape Horn for trials?

Despite therapeutic improvements, cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the most common cause of death in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). In addition to percutaneous coronary intervention, inotropes, fluids, adjunctive medication, intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation, and also assist devices are widely used for treatment. However, currently, there is only limited evidence for any of the above treatments. This review will therefore outline the underlying causes, pathophysiology, and treatment of CS complicating AMI with major focus on interventional techniques and advancement of new therapeutical arsenals, both pharmacological and mechanical.

Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices vs. intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation for treatment of cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis of controlled trials

AIMS

Studies have compared safety and efficacy of percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation in patients with cardiogenic shock. We performed a meta-analysis of controlled trials to evaluate potential benefits of percutaneous LVAD on haemodynamics and 30-day survival.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two independent investigators searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for all controlled trials using percutaneous LVAD in patients with cardiogenic shock, where after data were extracted using standardized forms. Weighted mean differences (MDs) were calculated for cardiac index (CI), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP). Relative risks (RRs) were calculated for 30-day mortality, leg ischaemia, bleeding, and sepsis. In main analysis, trials were combined using inverse-variance random effects approach. Two trials evaluated the TandemHeart and a recent trial used the Impella device. After device implantation, percutaneous LVAD patients had higher CI (MD 0.35 L/min/m(2), 95% CI 0.09-0.61), higher MAP (MD 12.8 mmHg, 95% CI 3.6-22.0), and lower PCWP (MD -5.3 mm Hg, 95% CI -9.4 to -1.2) compared with IABP patients. Similar 30-day mortality (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.68-1.66) was observed using percutaneous LVAD compared with IABP. No significant difference was observed in incidence of leg ischaemia (RR 2.59, 95% CI 0.75-8.97) in percutaneous LVAD patients compared with IABP patients. Bleeding (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.40-3.93) was significantly more observed in TandemHeart patients compared with patients treated with IABP.

CONCLUSION

Although percutaneous LVAD provides superior haemodynamic support in patients with cardiogenic shock compared with IABP, the use of these more powerful devices did not improve early survival. These results do not yet support percutaneous LVAD as first-choice approach in the mechanical management of cardiogenic shock.

Cellular responses to mild heat stress

Since its discovery in 1962 by Ritossa, the heat shock response has been extensively studied by a number of investigators to understand the molecular mechanism underlying the cellular response to heat stress. The most well characterized heat shock response is induction of the heat shock proteins that function as molecular chaperones and exert cell cycle regulatory and anti-apoptotic activities. While most investigators have focused their studies on the toxic effects of heat stress in organisms such as severe heat stress-induced cell cycle arrest and apoptosis, the cellular response to fever-ranged mild heat stress has been rather underestimated. However, the cellular response to mild heat stress is likely to be more important in a physiological sense than that to severe heat stress because the body temperature of homeothermic animals increases by only 1-2 degrees C during febrile diseases. Here we provide information that mild heat stress does have some beneficial role in organisms via positively regulating cell proliferation and differentiation, and immune response in mammalian cells.