The shock team: a multidisciplinary approach to early patient phenotyping and appropriate care escalation in cardiogenic shock

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.

Shock Teams: A Contemporary Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a time-sensitive and often fatal condition. To address this issue, many centers have developed multidisciplinary shock teams with a common goal of expediting the recognition and treatment of CS. In this review, we examine the mission, structure, implementation, and outcomes reported by these early shock teams.

RECENT FINDINGS

To date, there have been four observational shock team analyses, each providing unique insight into the utility of the shock team. The limited available data supports that shock teams are associated with improved CS mortality. However, there is considerable operational heterogeneity among shock teams, and randomized data assessing their value and best practices in both local and regional care models are needed.

Cardiac intensive care unit: where we are in 2023

Cardiac intensive care has been a constantly evolving area of research and innovation since the beginning of the 21st century. The story began in 1961 with Desmond Julian's pioneering creation of a coronary intensive care unit to improve the prognosis of patients with myocardial infarction, considered the major cause of death in the world. These units have continued to progress over time, with the introduction of new therapeutic means such as fibrinolysis, invasive hemodynamic monitoring using the Swan-Ganz catheter, and mechanical circulatory assistance, with significant advances in percutaneous interventional coronary and structural procedures. Since acute cardiovascular disease is not limited to the management of acute coronary syndromes and includes other emergencies such as severe arrhythmias, acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, high-risk pulmonary embolism, severe conduction disorders, and post-implantation monitoring of percutaneous valves, as well as other non-cardiac emergencies, such as septic shock, severe respiratory failure, severe renal failure and the management of cardiac arrest after resuscitation, the conversion of coronary intensive care units into cardiac intensive care units represented an important priority. Today, the cardiac intensive care units (CICU) concept is widely adopted by most healthcare systems, whatever the country's level of development. The main aim of these units remains to improve the overall morbidity and mortality of acute cardiovascular diseases, but also to manage other non-cardiac disorders, such as sepsis and respiratory failure. This diversity of tasks and responsibilities has enabled us to classify these CICUs according to several levels, depending on a variety of parameters, principally the level of care delivered, the staff assigned, the equipment and technologies available, the type of research projects carried out, and the type of connections and networking developed. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) have detailed this organization in guidelines published initially in 2005 and updated in 2018, with the aim of harmonizing the structure, organization, and care offered by the various CICUs. In this state-of-the-art report, we review the history of the CICUs from the creation of the very first unit in 1968 to the discussion of their current perspectives, with the main objective of knowing what the CICUs will have become by 2023.

Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support: Left, Right, and Biventricular Devices

Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) encompasses a wide array of invasive devices, which provide short-term hemodynamic support for multiple clinical indications. Although initially developed for the management of cardiogenic shock, indications for MCS have expanded to include prophylactic insertion prior to high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention, treatment of acute circulatory failure following cardiac surgery, and bridging of end-stage heart failure patients to more definitive therapies, such as left ventricular assist devices and cardiac transplantation. A wide variety of devices are available to provide left ventricular, right ventricular, or biventricular support. The choice of a temporary MCS device requires consideration of the clinical scenario, patient characteristics, institution protocols, and provider familiarity and training. In this review, the most common forms of left, right, and biventricular temporary MCS are discussed, along with their indications, contraindications, complications, cannulations, hemodynamic effects, and available clinical data.

Evolving Presentation of Cardiogenic Shock: A Review of the Medical Literature and Current Practices

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with cardiovascular disease. In the past, acute myocardial infarction was the leading cause of CS. However, in recent years, other etiologies, such as decompensated chronic heart failure, arrhythmia, valvular disease, and post-cardiotomy, each with distinct hemodynamic profiles, have risen in prevalence. The number of treatment options, particularly with regard to device-mediated therapy has also increased. In this review, we sought to survey the medical literature and provide an update on current practices.