The mechanical support of cardiogenic shock

Impella Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Treated With Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: An Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used for patients with cardiogenic shock. Although Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is frequently used for left ventricular unloading (LVU) during VA-ECMO treatment, there are limited data on comparative outcomes. We compared outcomes of Impella and IABP for LVU during VA-ECMO.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database between 2016 and 2020, we analyzed outcomes in 3 groups of patients with cardiogenic shock requiring VA-ECMO based on LVU strategies: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) only, ECMO with IABP, and ECMO with Impella. Of 15 980 patients on VA-ECMO, IABP and Impella were used in 19.4% and 16.4%, respectively. The proportion of patients receiving Impella significantly increased from 2016 to 2020 (6.5% versus 25.8%; P-trend<0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher with ECMO with Impella (54.8%) compared with ECMO only (50.4%) and ECMO with IABP (48.4%). After adjustment, ECMO with IABP versus ECMO only was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.83; P=0.02). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO only had similar in-hospital mortality (aOR, 1.09; P=0.695) but was associated with more bleeding (aOR, 1.21; P=0.007) and more acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.42; P<0.001). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO with IABP was associated with greater risk of acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.49; P=0.002), higher in-hospital mortality (aOR, 1.32; P=0.001), and higher 40-day mortality (hazard ratio, 1.25; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with cardiogenic shock on VA-ECMO, LVU with Impella, particularly with 2.5/CP, was not associated with improved survival at 40 days but was associated with increased adverse events compared with IABP. More data are needed to assess Impella platform-specific comparative outcomes of LVU.

Prognostic effect of sex according to shock severity in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUND

Sex disparities in cardiogenic shock (CS) treatment are controversial, and the prognostic implications of sex remain unclear in CS caused by acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic effect of sex according to the severity of CS in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for AMI complicated by CS.

METHODS

We assessed 695 patients from 12 tertiary centers in South Korea who underwent PCI for AMI complicated by CS, and analyzed outcomes by sex (female [n = 184] vs. male [n = 511]). We compared a 12-month patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE, defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, re-hospitalization due to heart failure, and repeat revascularization) between the sexes, respective of SCAI shock stage C&D or E. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed to reduce bias.

RESULTS

We found that the female group was older and had higher vasoactive-inotropic and IABP-SHOCK II scores than the male group, with findings consistent across SCAI shock stages. During the 12-month follow-up period, multivariate analysis revealed no significant differences in POCE (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67-1.53, p = 0.963 for SCAI stage C&D, HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.84-1.84, p = 0.286 for SCAI stage E) between females and males. After propensity score matching, the incidence of POCE (HR 1.47, 95% CI 0.79-2.72, p = 0.220 for SCAI stage C&D, HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.49-1.57, p = 0.665 for SCAI stage E) was similar between sexes.

CONCLUSIONS

Sex does not appear to influence the risk of 12-month POCE in patients treated with PCI for CS caused by AMI, irrespective of shock severity.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02985008. RESCUE (REtrospective and prospective observational Study to investigate Clinical oUtcomes and Efficacy of left ventricular assist device for Korean patients with cardiogenic shock), NCT02985008, Registered December 5, 2016 - retrospectively and prospectively.

IRB INFORMATION

This study was approved by the institutional review board of Samsung Medical Center (Reference number: 2016-03-130).

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.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation During Pregnancy

In the last 2 decades, the use of venovenous (VV) and venoarterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) during pregnancy and the postpartum period has increased, mirroring the increased utilization in nonpregnant individuals worldwide. VV ECMO provides respiratory support for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who fail conventional mechanical ventilation. With the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of VV ECMO has increased dramatically and data during pregnancy and the postpartum period are overall reassuring. In contrast, VA ECMO provides both respiratory and cardiovascular support. Data on the use of VA ECMO during pregnancy are extremely limited.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock: Results of the ECMO-CS Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly being used for circulatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock, although the evidence supporting its use in this context remains insufficient. The ECMO-CS trial (Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock) aimed to compare immediate implementation of VA-ECMO versus an initially conservative therapy (allowing downstream use of VA-ECMO) in patients with rapidly deteriorating or severe cardiogenic shock.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, investigator-initiated, academic clinical trial included patients with either rapidly deteriorating or severe cardiogenic shock. Patients were randomly assigned to immediate VA-ECMO or no immediate VA-ECMO. Other diagnostic and therapeutic procedures were performed as per current standards of care. In the early conservative group, VA-ECMO could be used downstream in case of worsening hemodynamic status. The primary end point was the composite of death from any cause, resuscitated circulatory arrest, and implementation of another mechanical circulatory support device at 30 days.

RESULTS

A total of 122 patients were randomized; after excluding 5 patients because of the absence of informed consent, 117 subjects were included in the analysis, of whom 58 were randomized to immediate VA-ECMO and 59 to no immediate VA-ECMO. The composite primary end point occurred in 37 (63.8%) and 42 (71.2%) patients in the immediate VA-ECMO and the no early VA-ECMO groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.46-1.12]; P=0.21). VA-ECMO was used in 23 (39%) of no early VA-ECMO patients. The 30-day incidence of resuscitated cardiac arrest (10.3.% versus 13.6%; risk difference, -3.2 [95% CI, -15.0 to 8.5]), all-cause mortality (50.0% versus 47.5%; risk difference, 2.5 [95% CI, -15.6 to 20.7]), serious adverse events (60.3% versus 61.0%; risk difference, -0.7 [95% CI, -18.4 to 17.0]), sepsis, pneumonia, stroke, leg ischemia, and bleeding was not statistically different between the immediate VA-ECMO and the no immediate VA-ECMO groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate implementation of VA-ECMO in patients with rapidly deteriorating or severe cardiogenic shock did not improve clinical outcomes compared with an early conservative strategy that permitted downstream use of VA-ECMO in case of worsening hemodynamic status.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT02301819.

Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair in patients with mitral regurgitation and cardiogenic shock: a new therapeutic target

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiogenic shock with significant mitral regurgitation portends a poor prognosis with limited therapeutic options. Herein, we review the available evidence regarding the patient characteristics, management, impact of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) on hemodynamics, and clinical outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock and mitral regurgitation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several observational studies and systematic reviews have demonstrated the feasibility and safety of TEER in cardiogenic shock complicated by degenerative or functional mitral regurgitation. Surgical interventions for mitral regurgitation remain limited owing to the risk profile of patients in cardiogenic shock. TEER has been studied in both degenerative and functional mitral regurgitation and remains feasible in the critically ill population. Moreover, TEER is associated with reduction in mitral regurgitation and improvement in-hospital and long-term mortality.

SUMMARY

TEER remains a promising therapeutic option in cardiogenic shock complicated by significant mitral regurgitation, but additional research is required to identify patient and procedural characteristics, hemodynamic parameters, and the optimal time for intervention. Moreover, future randomized controlled trials are in progress to evaluate the potential benefit of TEER against medical management in cardiogenic shock and mitral regurgitation.

Percutaneous angio-guided versus surgical veno-arterial ECLS implantation in patients with cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND

Veno-arterial Extracorporeal Life Support (V-A ECLS) has gained increasing place into the management of patients with refractory cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest. Both surgical and percutaneous approach can be used for cannulation, but percutaneous approach has been associated with fewer complications. Angio-guided percutaneous cannulation and decannulation may further decrease the rate of complication. We aimed to compare outcome and complication rates in patients supported with V-A ECLS through percutaneous angio-guided versus surgical approach.

METHODS

We included all patients with emergent peripheral femoro-femoral V-A ECLS implantation for refractory cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest in our center from March 2018 to March 2021. Survival and major complications (major bleeding, limb ischemia and groin infection) rates were compared between the percutaneous angio-guided and the surgical groups.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty patients received V-A ECLS, 59 through surgical approach and 61 through angio-guided percutaneous approach. Patients' baseline characteristics and severity scores were equally balanced between the 2 groups. Thirty-day mortality was not significantly different between the 2 approaches. However, angio-guided percutaneous cannulation was associated with fewer major vascular complications (42% vs. 11%, p > 0.0001) and a higher rate of V-A ECLS decannulation. In multivariate analysis, percutaneous angio-guided implantation of V-A ECLS was independently associated with a lower probability of major complications.

CONCLUSION

Compared to surgical approach, angio-guided percutaneous V-A ECLS implantation is associated with fewer major vascular complications. Larger studies are needed to confirm those results and address their impact on mortality.

Lingua Franca of Cardiogenic Shock: Speaking the Same Language

Cardiogenic shock has remained a vexing clinical problem over the last 20 years despite progressive development of increasingly capable percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices. It is increasingly clear that the published trials of various percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices have compared heterogenous populations of cardiogenic shock patients, and therefore have not yielded a single result where one approach improved survival. To classify patients, various risk scores such as the CARDSHOCK and IABP-Shock-II scores have been developed and validated but they have not been broadly applied. The Society for Cardiac Angiography and Intervention Expert Consensus on Classification of Cardiogenic Shock has been widely studied since its publication in 2019, and is reviewed at length. In particular, there have been numerous validation studies done and these are reviewed. Finally, the directions for future research are reviewed.