Quantification of Vasoactive Medications and the "Pharmaco-Mechanical Continuum" in Cardiogenic Shock

The Price We Pay for Progression in Shock Care: Economic Burden, Accessibility, and Adoption of Shock-Teams and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with high in-hospital and long-term mortality and morbidity that results in significant socio-economic impact. Due to the high costs associated with CS care, it is important to define the short- and long-term burden of this disease state on resources and review strategies to mitigate these.

RECENT FINDINGS

In recent times, the focus on CS continues to be on improving short-term outcomes, but there has been increasing emphasis on the long-term morbidity. In this review we discuss the long-term outcomes of CS and the role of hospital-level and system-level disparities in perpetuating this. We discuss mitigation strategies including developing evidence-based protocols and systems of care, improvement in risk stratification and evaluation of futility of care, all of which address the economic burden of CS. CS continues to remain the pre-eminent challenge in acute cardiovascular care, and a combination of multi-pronged strategies are needed to improve outcomes in this population.

Medical therapy of cardiogenic shock: Contemporary use of inotropes and vasopressors

Cardiogenic shock is a primary cardiac disorder that results in both clinical and biochemical evidence of tissue hypoperfusion and can lead to multi-organ failure and death depending on its severity. Inadequate cardiac contractility or cardiac power secondary to acute myocardial infarction remains the most frequent cause of cardiogenic shock, although its contribution has declined over the past two decades, compared with other causes. Despite some advances in cardiogenic shock management, this clinical syndrome is still burdened by an extremely high mortality. Its management is based on immediate stabilization of haemodynamic parameters so that further treatment, including mechanical circulatory support and transfer to specialized tertiary care centres, can be accomplished. With these aims, medical therapy, consisting mainly of inotropic drugs and vasopressors, still has a major role. The purpose of this article is to review current evidence on the use of these medications in patients with cardiogenic shock and discuss specific clinical settings with indications to their use.

Escalation strategies, management, and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock patients receiving percutaneous left ventricular support

BACKGROUND

There are limited national-level data on the contemporary practices of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) use in acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS).

METHODS

We utilized the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-National/Nationwide Inpatient Sample data (2005-2017) to identify adult admissions (>18 years) with AMI-CS. MCS devices were classified as intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVAD), or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We evaluated trends in the initial device used (IABP alone, pLVAD alone or ≥2 MCS devices), device escalation, bridging to durable LVAD/heart transplantation, and predictors of in-hospital mortality and device escalation.

RESULTS

Among 327,283 AMI-CS admissions, 131,435 (40.2%) had an MCS device placed with available information on timing of placement. IABP, pLVAD, and ≥2 MCS devices were used as initial device in 120,928 (92.0%), 8202 (6.2%), and 2305 (1.7%) admissions, respectively. Most admissions were maintained on the initial MCS device with 1%-1.5% being escalated (IABP to pLVAD/ECMO, pLVAD to ECMO). Urban, medium, and large-sized hospitals and acute multiorgan failure were significant independent predictors of MCS escalation. In admissions receiving MCS, escalation of MCS device was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 1.56, 95% confidence interval:  1.38-1.75; p < 0.001). Admissions receiving durable LVAD/heart transplantation increased over time in those initiated on pLVAD and ≥2 MCS devices, resulting in lower in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In this 13-year study, escalation of MCS in AMI-CS was associated with higher in-hospital mortality suggestive of higher acuity of illness. The increase in number of durable LVAD/heart transplantations alludes to the role of MCS as successful bridge strategies.