Value of Hemodynamic Monitoring in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support

Haemodynamic support with percutaneous devices in patients with cardiogenic shock: the current evidence of mechanical circulatory support

INTRODUCTION

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex life-threatening condition that results from primary cardiac dysfunction, leading to persistent hypotension and systemic hypoperfusion. Among the therapeutic options for CS are various percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices that have emerged as an increasingly effective hemodynamic support option. Percutaneous therapies can act as short-term mechanical circulatory assistance and can be split into intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and non-IABP percutaneous mechanical devices.

AREAS COVERED

This review will evaluate the MCS value while considering the mortality rate improvements. We also aim to outline the function of pharmacotherapies and percutaneous hemodynamic MCS devices in managing CS patients to avoid the onset of end-organ dysfunction and improve both early and late outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

Given the complexity, acuity and high mortality associated with CS, and despite the availability and efficacy of pharmacological management, MCS is required to achieve hemodynamic stability and improve survival. Various percutaneous MCS devices are available with varying indications and clinical outcomes. The rates of early mortality and complications were found to be comparable between the four devices, yet, IABP seemed to show the most optimal clinical profile whilst ECMO demonstrated its more long-term efficacy.

Implementation of a cardiogenic shock team in a tertiary academic center

OBJECTIVE

Observational studies have shown that the management of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) by dedicated multidisciplinary teams improves clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, these studies reflect a specific organizational setting with most patients being transferred from referring hospitals, hospitalized in cardiac intensive care units (ICU), or treated with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices. The purpose of this study was to document the organization and outcomes of a CS team offering acute care in an all-comer population.

METHODS

A CS team was developed in a large academic tertiary institution. The team consisted of emergency care physicians, critical care cardiologists, interventional cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, ICU physicians, and heart failure specialists and was supported by a predefined operating protocol, a dedicated communication platform, and regular team meetings.

RESULTS

Over 12 months, 70 CS patients (69 ± 13 years old, 67% males) were included. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) was the most common cause (64%); 31% of the patients presented post-resuscitated cardiac arrest and 56% needed invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Coronary angiography was performed in 70% and 53% had percutaneous coronary intervention. MCS was used in 10% and 6% were referred for urgent cardiac surgery. The in-hospital mortality in our center was 40% with 39% of the patients dying within 24 h from presentation. Overall, 76% of the live patients were discharged home.

CONCLUSION

Across an all-comer population, AMI was the most common cause of CS. A significant number of patients presented post-cardiac arrest, and the majority required IMV. Mortality was high with a significant number dying within hours of presentation.

Practical Guidance for Hemodynamic Assessment by Right Heart Catheterization in Management of Heart Failure

Heart failure is a clinical syndrome characterized by the inability of the heart to meet the circulatory demands of the body without requiring an increase in intracardiac pressures at rest or with exertion. Hemodynamic parameters can be measured via right heart catheterization, which has an integral role in the full spectrum of heart failure: from ambulatory patients to those in cardiogenic shock, as well as patients being considered for left ventricular device therapy and heart transplantation. Hemodynamic data are critical for prompt recognition of clinical deterioration, assessment of prognosis, and guidance of treatment decisions. This review is a field guide for hemodynamic assessment, troubleshooting, and interpretation for clinicians treating patients with heart failure.

The Management of Cardiogenic Shock From Diagnosis to Devices: A Narrative Review

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a heterogenous syndrome broadly characterized by inadequate cardiac output leading to tissue hypoperfusion and multisystem organ dysfunction that carries an ongoing high mortality burden. The management of CS has advanced rapidly, especially with the incorporation of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices. A thorough understanding of how to approach a patient with CS and to select appropriate monitoring and treatment paradigms is essential in modern ICUs. Timely characterization of CS severity and hemodynamics is necessary to optimize outcomes, and this may be performed best by multidisciplinary shock-focused teams. In this article, we provide a review of CS aimed to inform both the cardiology-trained and non-cardiology-trained intensivist provider. We briefly describe the causes, pathophysiologic features, diagnosis, and severity staging of CS, focusing on gathering key information that is necessary for making management decisions. We go on to provide a more detailed review of CS management principles and practical applications, with a focus on tMCS. Medical management focuses on appropriate medication therapy to optimize perfusion-by enhancing contractility and minimizing afterload-and to facilitate decongestion. For more severe CS, or for patients with decompensating hemodynamic status despite medical therapy, initiation of the appropriate tMCS increasingly is common. We discuss the most common devices currently used for patients with CS-phenotyping patients as having left ventricular failure, right ventricular failure, or biventricular failure-and highlight key available data and particular points of consideration that inform tMCS device selection. Finally, we highlight core components of sedation and respiratory failure management for patients with CS.

Mechanical Support in High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Review Article

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) may manifest with mild nonspecific symptoms or progress to a more severe hemodynamic collapse and sudden cardiac arrest. A substantial thrombotic burden can precipitate sudden right ventricular strain and failure. Traditionally, systemic thrombolytics have been employed in such scenarios; however, patients often present with contraindications, or these interventions may prove ineffective. Outcomes for this medically complex patient population are unfavorable, necessitating a compelling argument for advanced therapeutic modalities or alternative approaches. Moreover, patients frequently experience complications beyond hemodynamic instability, such as profound hypoxia and multiorgan failure, necessitating assertive early interventions to avert catastrophic consequences. The existing data on the utilization of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are not exhaustive. Various options for percutaneous MCS devices exist, each possessing distinct advantages and disadvantages. There is an imminent imperative to develop a tailored approach for this high-risk patient cohort to enhance their overall outcomes.

Pulmonary Artery Catheter Usage and Impact on Mortality in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: Results From a Canadian Single-Centre Registry

BACKGROUND

Hemodynamic assessment for cardiogenic shock (CS) phenotyping in patients has led to renewed interest in the use of pulmonary artery catheters (PACs).

METHODS

We included patients admitted with CS from January 2014 to December 2020 and compared clinical outcomes among patients who received PACs and those who did not. The primary outcome was the rate of in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included use of advanced heart failure therapies and coronary intensive care unit (CICU) and hospital lengths of stay.

RESULTS

A total of 1043 patients were analysed and 47% received PACs. Patients selected for PAC-guided management were younger and had lower left ventricular function. They also had higher use of vasopressor and inotropes, and 15.2% of them were already supported with temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS). In-hospital mortality was lower in patients who received PACs (29.3% vs 36.2%; P = 0.02), mainly driven by a reduction in mortality among those in Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) stages D and E CS. Patients who received PACs were more likely to receive temporary MCS with Impella, durable ventricular assist devices (VADs), or orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) (P < 0.001 for all analyses). CICU and hospital lengths of stay were longer in patients who used PACs.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with CS, the use of PACs was associated with lower in-hospital mortality, especially among those in SCAI stages D and E. Patients who received PACs were also more frequently rescued with temporary MCS or received advanced heart failure therapies, such as durable VADs or OHT.

Contemporary approach to cardiogenic shock care: a state-of-the-art review

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a time-sensitive and hemodynamically complex syndrome with a broad spectrum of etiologies and clinical presentations. Despite contemporary therapies, CS continues to maintain high morbidity and mortality ranging from 35 to 50%. More recently, burgeoning observational research in this field aimed at enhancing the early recognition and characterization of the shock state through standardized team-based protocols, comprehensive hemodynamic profiling, and tailored and selective utilization of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices has been associated with improved outcomes. In this narrative review, we discuss the pathophysiology of CS, novel phenotypes, evolving definitions and staging systems, currently available pharmacologic and device-based therapies, standardized, team-based management protocols, and regionalized systems-of-care aimed at improving shock outcomes. We also explore opportunities for fertile investigation through randomized and non-randomized studies to address the prevailing knowledge gaps that will be critical to improving long-term outcomes.

Diagnosis and treatment of right ventricular failure secondary to acutely increased right ventricular afterload (acute cor pulmonale): a clinical consensus statement of the Association for Acute CardioVascular Care of the European Society of Cardiology

Acute right ventricular failure secondary to acutely increased right ventricular afterload (acute cor pulmonale) is a life-threatening condition that may arise in different clinical settings. Patients at risk of developing or with manifest acute cor pulmonale usually present with an acute pulmonary disease (e.g. pulmonary embolism, pneumonia, and acute respiratory distress syndrome) and are managed initially in emergency departments and later in intensive care units. According to the clinical setting, other specialties are involved (cardiology, pneumology, internal medicine). As such, coordinated delivery of care is particularly challenging but, as shown during the COVID-19 pandemic, has a major impact on prognosis. A common framework for the management of acute cor pulmonale with inclusion of the perspectives of all involved disciplines is urgently needed.

Development and Validation of a Risk Score Predicting Death Without Transplant in Adult Heart Transplant Candidates

Importance

The US heart allocation system prioritizes medically urgent candidates with a high risk of dying without transplant. The current therapy-based 6-status system is susceptible to manipulation and has limited rank ordering ability.

Objective

To develop and validate a candidate risk score that incorporates current clinical, laboratory, and hemodynamic data.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A registry-based observational study of adult heart transplant candidates (aged ≥18 years) from the US heart allocation system listed between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2022, split by center into training (70%) and test (30%) datasets. Adult candidates were listed between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

A US candidate risk score (US-CRS) model was developed by adding a predefined set of predictors to the current French Candidate Risk Score (French-CRS) model. Sensitivity analyses were performed, which included intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) and percutaneous ventricular assist devices (VAD) in the definition of short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for the US-CRS. Performance of the US-CRS model, French-CRS model, and 6-status model in the test dataset was evaluated by time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for death without transplant within 6 weeks and overall survival concordance (c-index) with integrated AUC.

Results

A total of 16 905 adult heart transplant candidates were listed (mean [SD] age, 53 [13] years; 73% male; 58% White); 796 patients (4.7%) died without a transplant. The final US-CRS contained time-varying short-term MCS (ventricular assist-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or temporary surgical VAD), the log of bilirubin, estimated glomerular filtration rate, the log of B-type natriuretic peptide, albumin, sodium, and durable left ventricular assist device. In the test dataset, the AUC for death within 6 weeks of listing for the US-CRS model was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.75-0.83), for the French-CRS model was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.67-0.76), and 6-status model was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.62-0.73). Overall c-index for the US-CRS model was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.73-0.80), for the French-CRS model was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.65-0.73), and 6-status model was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.63-0.71). Classifying IABP and percutaneous VAD as short-term MCS reduced the effect size by 54%.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this registry-based study of US heart transplant candidates, a continuous multivariable allocation score outperformed the 6-status system in rank ordering heart transplant candidates by medical urgency and may be useful for the medical urgency component of heart allocation.

Echocardiographic estimation of pulmonary pressure in patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation

OBJECTIVES

The estimation of systolic pulmonary artery pressure (sPAP) by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is challenging in patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR). The study aimed to determine the reliability of the assessment of sPAP by TTE in this population.

METHODS

This study was a single-centre analysis of consecutive patients at the University Hospital of Rennes with right heart catheterisation and TTE, performed with a maximum delay of 48 hours. Lin's concordance coefficient (LCC) and Bland-Altman analysis were used to compare the values.

RESULTS

After applying the exclusion criteria, 236 patients were included in the analysis (age 71±11.5 years old; male 56%). The two principal indications were TR (34.3%) and mitral regurgitation (32.2%). The correlation between the two procedures was good in the total population (LCC=0.80; 95% limits of agreement (LOA): 0.74, 0.84), but weaker in the 78 patients (33%) with severe TR (LCC=0.67; 95% LOA: 0.49, 0.80), with a propensity to an underestimation by TTE. An elevated right atrial pressure (RAP) was associated with an underestimation by TTE of about 8 mmHg. The presence of a 'V-wave cut-off' sign on continuous-wave Doppler (OR=3.74; 95% CI 1.48, 9.30; p<0.01), found exclusively in patients with severe TR, was an independent predictor of sPAP misestimation by TTE.

CONCLUSION

The reliability of the estimation of sPAP in patients with severe TR could be altered by high RAP which cannot be estimated with current thresholds.

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.

Medical and Mechanical Circulatory Support of the Failing Right Ventricle

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe medical therapies and mechanical circulatory support devices used in the treatment of acute right ventricular failure.

RECENT FINDINGS

Experts have proposed several algorithms providing a stepwise approach to medical optimization of acute right ventricular failure including tailored volume administration, ideal vasopressor selection to support coronary perfusion, inotropes to restore contractility, and pulmonary vasodilators to improve afterload. Studies have investigated various percutaneous and surgically implanted right ventricular assist devices in several clinical settings. The initial management of acute right ventricular failure is often guided by invasive hemodynamic data tracking parameters of circulatory function with the use of pharmacologic therapies. Percutaneous microaxial and centrifugal extracorporeal pumps bypass the failing RV and support circulatory function in severe cases of right ventricular failure.

Critical Care Management of Patients After Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association and Neurocritical Care Society

The critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest is burdened by a lack of high-quality clinical studies and the resultant lack of high-certainty evidence. This results in limited practice guideline recommendations, which may lead to uncertainty and variability in management. Critical care management is crucial in patients after cardiac arrest and affects outcome. Although guidelines address some relevant topics (including temperature control and neurological prognostication of comatose survivors, 2 topics for which there are more robust clinical studies), many important subject areas have limited or nonexistent clinical studies, leading to the absence of guidelines or low-certainty evidence. The American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the Neurocritical Care Society collaborated to address this gap by organizing an expert consensus panel and conference. Twenty-four experienced practitioners (including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and a respiratory therapist) from multiple medical specialties, levels, institutions, and countries made up the panel. Topics were identified and prioritized by the panel and arranged by organ system to facilitate discussion, debate, and consensus building. Statements related to postarrest management were generated, and 80% agreement was required to approve a statement. Voting was anonymous and web based. Topics addressed include neurological, cardiac, pulmonary, hematological, infectious, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and general critical care management. Areas of uncertainty, areas for which no consensus was reached, and future research directions are also included. Until high-quality studies that inform practice guidelines in these areas are available, the expert panel consensus statements that are provided can advise clinicians on the critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest.

Critical Care Management of Patients After Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and Neurocritical Care Society

The critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest is burdened by a lack of high-quality clinical studies and the resultant lack of high-certainty evidence. This results in limited practice guideline recommendations, which may lead to uncertainty and variability in management. Critical care management is crucial in patients after cardiac arrest and affects outcome. Although guidelines address some relevant topics (including temperature control and neurological prognostication of comatose survivors, 2 topics for which there are more robust clinical studies), many important subject areas have limited or nonexistent clinical studies, leading to the absence of guidelines or low-certainty evidence. The American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the Neurocritical Care Society collaborated to address this gap by organizing an expert consensus panel and conference. Twenty-four experienced practitioners (including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and a respiratory therapist) from multiple medical specialties, levels, institutions, and countries made up the panel. Topics were identified and prioritized by the panel and arranged by organ system to facilitate discussion, debate, and consensus building. Statements related to postarrest management were generated, and 80% agreement was required to approve a statement. Voting was anonymous and web based. Topics addressed include neurological, cardiac, pulmonary, hematological, infectious, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and general critical care management. Areas of uncertainty, areas for which no consensus was reached, and future research directions are also included. Until high-quality studies that inform practice guidelines in these areas are available, the expert panel consensus statements that are provided can advise clinicians on the critical care management of patients after cardiac arrest.

Contemporary Evidence and Practice on Right Heart Catheterization in Patients with Acute or Chronic Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) has a global prevalence of 1-2%, and the incidence around the world is growing. The prevalence increases with age, from around 1% for those aged <55 years to >10% for those aged 70 years or over. Based on studies in hospitalized patients, about 50% of patients have heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and 50% have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). HF is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and HF-related hospitalizations are common, costly, and impact both quality of life and prognosis. More than 5-10% of patients deteriorate into advanced HF (AdHF) with worse outcomes, up to cardiogenic shock (CS) condition. Right heart catheterization (RHC) is essential to assess hemodynamics in the diagnosis and care of patients with HF. The aim of this article is to review the evidence on RHC in various clinical scenarios of patients with HF.

Right to Left Cardiac Power Output- New Prognosticator in STEMI Patients With Cardiogenic Shock (R-Shock)

ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is a leading cause of cardiogenic shock (CS) and carries substantial mortality. Cardiac power output (CPO) is the strongest predictor of clinical outcome in CS, and worse outcomes result from concomitant right and left ventricular failure. Right ventricular performance is calculated using right sided CPO. Our aim was to measure the right sided CPO and compute their ratio to predict in-hospital mortality in STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock. This was a retrospective observational study of consecutive STEMI patients with CS that developed within the first 24hours of admission requiring left and right cardiac catheterization at a large tertiary care center from January 2014-December 2018. One hundred sixty-four patients identified with STEMI; 46% (75) excluded due to incomplete data. 88 remaining patients, 52.8% (47) developed CS. 98.9% within 24 hours. Mean left & right CPO 0.62 (SD 0.3) and 0.22 (SD 0.13), PAPi score 1.81. Logistic regression analysis indicated odds ratio of in-hospital mortality lower for low left CPO, high right CPO and low ratio of left to right CPO (95% CI; 0.69, 0.34, 1.20; 1.38, 0.87, 2.20; 0.52, 0.28, 1.00 respectively). This is the first study to assess right sided CPO and ratio of right and left side CPO and mortality. Our study indicates that there is trend towards higher in-hospital mortality in patients with high right sided CPO and lower ratio of left to right CPO. The exploratory results of this study need to be confirmed in a larger population.

Cardiogenic Shock: Pathogenesis, Classification, and Management

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening circulatory failure syndrome which can progress rapidly to irreversible multiorgan failure through self-perpetuating pathophysiological processes. Recent developments in CS classification have highlighted its etiologic, mechanistic, and hemodynamic heterogeneity. Optimal CS management depends on early recognition, rapid reversal of the underlying cause, and prompt initiation of hemodynamic support.

Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock

Cardiogenic shock is a complex and diverse pathological condition characterized by reduced myocardial contractility. The goal of treatment of cardiogenic shock is to improve abnormal hemodynamics and maintain adequate tissue perfusion in organs. If hypotension and insufficient tissue perfusion persist despite initial therapy, temporary mechanical circulatory support (t-MCS) should be initiated. This decade sees the beginning of a new era of cardiogenic shock management using t-MCS through the accumulated experience with use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), as well as new revolutionary devices or systems such as transvalvular axial flow pump (Impella) and a combination of VA-ECMO and Impella (ECPELLA) based on the knowledge of circulatory physiology. In this transitional period, we outline the approach to the management of cardiogenic shock by t-MCS. The management strategy involves carefully selecting one or a combination of the t-MCS devices, taking into account the characteristics of each device and the specific pathological condition. This selection is guided by monitoring of hemodynamics, classification of shock stage, risk stratification, and coordinated management by the multidisciplinary shock team.

Research Priorities in Critical Care Cardiology: JACC Expert Panel

Over the last several decades, the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) has seen a substantial evolution in the patient population, comorbidities, and diagnoses. However, the generation of high-quality evidence to manage these complex and critically ill patients has been slow. Given the scarcity of clinical trials focused on critical care cardiology (CCC), CICU clinicians are often left to extrapolate from studies that either exclude or poorly represent the patient population admitted to CICUs. The lack of high-quality evidence and limited guidance from society guidelines has led to significant variation in practice patterns for many of the most common CICU diagnoses. Several barriers, both common to critical care research and unique to CCC, have impeded progress. In this multinational perspective, we describe key areas of priority for CCC research, current challenges for investigation in the CICU, and essential elements of a path forward for the field.

Monitoring MCS patients on the intensive care unit: integrating haemodynamic assessment, laboratory data, and imaging techniques for timely detection of deterioration and recovery

Monitoring of the patient supported with a temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) is crucial in achieving the best possible outcome. Monitoring is a continuous and labour-intensive process, as cardiogenic shock (CS) patients can rapidly deteriorate and may require new interventions within a short time period. Echocardiography and invasive haemodynamic monitoring form the cornerstone of successful tMCS support. During monitoring, it is particularly important to ensure that adequate end-organ perfusion is achieved and maintained. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of best practices for monitoring the CS patient supported by a micro-axial flow pump, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and both devices simultaneously (ECMELLA approach). It is a complex process that encompasses device control, haemodynamic control and stabilization, monitoring of interventions, and assessment of end-organ function. The combined, continuous, and preferably protocol-based approach of echocardiography, evaluation of biomarkers, end-organ assessment, and haemodynamic parameters is crucial in assessing this critically ill CS patient population.

Noninvasive Hemodynamic Characterization of Shock and Preshock Using Echocardiography in Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Patients

BACKGROUND

Shock and preshock are defined on the basis of the presence of hypotension, hypoperfusion, or both. We sought to determine the hemodynamic underpinnings of shock and preshock noninvasively using transthoracic echocardiography (TTE).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We included Mayo Clinic cardiac intensive care unit patients from 2007 to 2015 with TTE within 1 day of admission. Hypotension and hypoperfusion at the time of cardiac intensive care unit admission were used to define 4 groups. TTE findings were evaluated across these groups, and in-hospital mortality was evaluated according to TTE findings in each group. We included 5375 patients with a median age of 69.2 years (36.8% women). The median left ventricular ejection fraction was 50%. Groups based on hypotension and hypoperfusion were assigned as follows: no hypotension or hypoperfusion, 59.7%; isolated hypotension, 15.3%; isolated hypoperfusion, 16.4%; and both hypotension and hypoperfusion, 8.7%. Most TTE variables of interest varied across these groups, with worse biventricular function, lower forward flow, and higher filling pressures as the degree of hemodynamic compromise increased. In-hospital mortality occurred in 8.2%, and inpatient deaths had more TTE parameter abnormalities. In-hospital mortality increased with the degree of hemodynamic compromise, and a marked gradient in in-hospital mortality was observed when the clinical classification of shock and preshock was combined with TTE findings reflecting worse biventricular function, lower forward flow, or higher filling pressures.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial differences in cardiac function are observed between cardiac intensive care unit patients with preshock and shock using TTE, and the combination of the clinical and TTE hemodynamic assessment provides robust mortality risk stratification.

Use and Implications of Echocardiography in the Hemodynamic Assessment of Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex multisystem syndrome due to pump failure, associated with high mortality and morbidity. Its hemodynamic characterization is key to the diagnostic algorithm and management. Pulmonary artery catheterization is the gold standard for the left and right hemodynamic evaluation, but some concerns exist for invasivity and untoward mechanical and infective complications. Transthoracic echocardiography is a robust noninvasive diagnostic tool for hemodynamic multiparametric assessment that well applies to the management of CS. Its applications expand from etiology definition to the choice of therapeutic intervention and their monitoring. The present review aims at detailing the role of ultrasounds in CS emphasizing the clinical implications of combining cardiac and non-cardiac ultrasounds examinations that may correlate with prognosis.

Case Report: Correlation between pulmonary capillary wedge pressure and left-ventricular diastolic pressure during treatment with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Background

Pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) is often used as a surrogate for left-ventricular end-diastolic pressure in patients (LVEDP) who are on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO) support for cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest. However, the correlation between PCWP and LVEDP is not clear in the setting of V-A ECMO usage. We sought to evaluate this correlation in this case series.

Methods

Patients were referred to our cardiac catheterization laboratory for invasive hemodynamic studies to assess their readiness for VA-ECMO decannulation. All patients underwent simultaneous left and right heart catheterization. Using standard techniques, we measured PCWP and LVEDP simultaneously. Continuous variables were reported as medians with interquartile ranges. The correlation between PCWP and LVEDP was evaluated using simple linear regression and reported as R2.

Results

Four patients underwent invasive hemodynamic studies 4 (2.5, 7) days after VA-ECMO cannulation. All four patients had suffered in-hospital cardiac arrest and had been put on VA-ECMO. At the baseline level of VA-ECMO flow of 4.1 (3.8, 4.4) L/min, the median LVEDP and PCWP were 6 (4, 7.5) mmHg and 12 (6.5, 16) mmHg, respectively. At the lowest level of VA-ECMO flow of 1.9 (1.6, 2.0) L/min, the median LVEDP and PCWP was 13.5 (8.5, 16) mmHg and 15 (13, 18) mmHg, respectively. There was a poor correlation between the simultaneously measured PCWP and LVEDP (R2 = 0.03, p = 0.66).

Conclusions

The PCWP may not correlate well with LVEDP in patients treated with VA-ECMO, particularly at high levels of VA-ECMO support.

Sepsis Management in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit

Septic shock management in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) is challenging due to the complex interaction of pathophysiology between vasodilatory and cardiogenic shock, complicating how to optimally deploy fluid resuscitation, vasopressors, and mechanical circulatory support devices. Because mixed shock portends high mortality and morbidity, familiarity with quality, contemporary clinical evidence surrounding available therapeutic tools is needed to address the resultant wide range of complications that can arise. This review integrates pathophysiology principles and clinical recommendations to provide an organized, topic-based review of the nuanced intricacies of managing sepsis in the CICU.

Clinical impact of pulmonary artery catheter in patients with cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The clinical utility of the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) for the management of cardiogenic shock (CS) remains controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis exploring the association between PAC use and mortality among patients with CS.

METHODS

Published studies of patients with CS treated with or without PAC hemodynamic guidance were retrieved from MEDLINE and PubMed databases from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2021. The primary outcome was mortality, which was defined as a combination of in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes assessed 30-day and in-hospital mortality separately. To assess the quality of nonrandomized studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), a well-established scoring system was used. We analyzed outcomes for each study using NOS with a threshold value of >6, indicating high quality. We also performed analyses based on the countries of the studies conducted.

RESULTS

Six studies with a total of 930,530 patients with CS were analyzed. Of these, 85,769 patients were in the PAC-treated group, and 844,761 patients did not receive a PAC. PAC use was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality (PAC: 4.6 % to 41.5 % vs control: 18.8 % to 51.0 %) (OR 0.63, 95 % CI: 0.41-0.97, I2 = 0.96). Subgroup analyses demonstrated no difference in the risk of mortality between NOS ≥ 6 studies and NOS < 6 studies (p-interaction = 0.57), 30-day and in-hospital mortality (p-interaction = 0.83), or the country of origin of studies (p-interaction = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of PAC in patients with CS may be associated with decreased mortality. These data support the need for a randomized controlled trial testing the utility of PAC use in CS.

Immediate in-hospital outcomes after percutaneous revascularization of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening complication of acute myocardial infarction with high morbidity and mortality rates. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with CS.

AIM

To investigate the immediate mortality rates in patients with CS undergoing primary PCI and identify mortality predictors.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 305 patients with CS who underwent primary PCI at the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Karachi, Pakistan, between January 2018 and December 2022. The primary outcome was immediate mortality, defined as mortality within index hospitalization. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of immediate mortality.

RESULTS

In a sample of 305 patients with 72.8% male patients and a mean age of 58.1 ± 11.8 years, the immediate mortality rate was found to be 54.8% (167). Multivariable analysis identified Killip class IV at presentation [odds ratio (OR): 2.0; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2-3.4; P = 0.008], Multivessel disease (OR: 3.5; 95%CI: 1.8-6.9; P < 0.001), and high thrombus burden (OR: 2.6; 95%CI: 1.4-4.9; P = 0.003) as independent predictors of immediate mortality.

CONCLUSION

Immediate mortality rate in patients with CS undergoing primary PCI remains high despite advances in treatment strategies. Killip class IV at presentation, multivessel disease, and high thrombus burden (grade ≥ 4) were identified as independent predictors of immediate mortality. These findings underscore the need for aggressive management and close monitoring of patients with CS undergoing primary PCI, particularly in those with these high-risk characteristics.

Pulmonary Artery Catheter Use and Risk of In-hospital Death in Heart Failure Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) are increasingly used to guide management decisions in cardiogenic shock (CS). The goal of this study was to determine if PAC use was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality in CS owing to acute heart failure (HF-CS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

This multicenter, retrospective, observational study included patients with CS hospitalized between 2019 and 2021 at 15 US hospitals participating in the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI), accounting for multiple variables at admission. The association between the timing of PAC placement and in-hospital death was also analyzed. A total of 1055 patients with HF-CS were included, of whom 834 (79%) received a PAC during their hospitalization. In-hospital mortality risk for the cohort was 24.7% (n = 261). PAC use was associated with lower adjusted in-hospital mortality risk (22.2% vs 29.8%, OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.94). Similar associations were found across SCAI stages of shock, both at admission and at maximum SCAI stage during hospitalization. Early PAC use (≤6 hours of admission) was observed in 220 PAC recipients (26%) and associated with a lower adjusted risk of in-hospital mortality compared with delayed (≥48 hours) or no PAC use (17.3% vs 27.7%, OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.37-0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

This observational study supports PAC use, because it was associated with decreased in-hospital mortality in HF-CS, especially if performed within 6 hours of hospital admission.

CONDENSED ABSTRACT

An observational study from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry of 1055 patients with HF-CS showed that pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use was associated with a lower adjusted in-hospital mortality risk (22.2% vs 29.8%, odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.50-0.94) compared with outcomes in patients managed without PAC. Early PAC use (≤6 hours of admission) was associated with a lower adjusted risk of in-hospital mortality compared with delayed (≥48 hours) or no PAC use (17.3% vs 27.7%, odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.81).

Advances in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock

OBJECTIVES

To review a contemporary approach to the management of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS).

DATA SOURCES

We reviewed salient medical literature regarding CS.

STUDY SELECTION

We included professional society scientific statements and clinical studies examining outcomes in patients with CS, with a focus on randomized clinical trials.

DATA EXTRACTION

We extracted salient study results and scientific statement recommendations regarding the management of CS.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Professional society recommendations were integrated with evaluated studies.

CONCLUSIONS

CS results in short-term mortality exceeding 30% despite standard therapy. While acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been the focus of most CS research, heart failure-related CS now predominates at many centers. CS can present with a wide spectrum of shock severity, including patients who are normotensive despite ongoing hypoperfusion. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention Shock Classification categorizes patients with or at risk of CS according to shock severity, which predicts mortality. The CS population includes a heterogeneous mix of phenotypes defined by ventricular function, hemodynamic profile, biomarkers, and other clinical variables. Integrating the shock severity and CS phenotype with nonmodifiable risk factors for mortality can guide clinical decision-making and prognostication. Identifying and treating the cause of CS is crucial for success, including early culprit vessel revascularization for AMI. Vasopressors and inotropes titrated to restore arterial pressure and perfusion are the cornerstone of initial medical therapy for CS. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is indicated for appropriately selected patients as a bridge to recovery, decision, durable MCS, or heart transplant. Randomized controlled trials have not demonstrated better survival with the routine use of temporary MCS in patients with CS. Accordingly, a multidisciplinary team-based approach should be used to tailor the type of hemodynamic support to each individual CS patient's needs based on shock severity, phenotype, and exit strategy.

State of Shock: Contemporary Vasopressor and Inotrope Use in Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock is characterized by tissue hypoxia caused by circulatory failure arising from inadequate cardiac output. In addition to treating the pathologic process causing impaired cardiac function, prompt hemodynamic support is essential to reduce the risk of developing multiorgan dysfunction and to preserve cellular metabolism. Pharmacologic therapy with the use of vasopressors and inotropes is a key component of this treatment strategy, improving perfusion by increasing cardiac output, altering systemic vascular resistance, or both, while allowing time and hemodynamic stability to treat the underlying disease process implicated in the development of cardiogenic shock. Despite the use of mechanical circulatory support recently garnering significant interest, pharmacologic hemodynamic support remains a cornerstone of cardiogenic shock management, with over 90% of patients receiving at least 1 vasoactive agent. This review aims to describe the pharmacology and hemodynamic effects of current pharmacotherapies and provide a practical approach to their use, while highlighting important future research directions.

Relationship between the volume of cases and in-hospital mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock receiving short-term mechanical circulatory support

BACKGROUND

We examined the relationship between annual case volume at each hospital and outcome in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients receiving mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used the Japanese nationwide database to identify patients receiving short-term MCS for CS between April 2012 and March 2020. Of 65,837 patients, 3 subcohorts were created; the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) alone (n = 48,643), the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (n = 16,871), and the Impella cohorts (n = 696).

RESULTS

The median annual case volume was 13.5 (7.4-22.1) in the IABP alone cohort, 6.4 (3.4-11.0) in the ECMO cohort, and 7.5 (4.0-10.7) in the Impella cohort. The highest quintile for the volume of cases in the IABP alone and ECMO had the lowest in-hospital mortality (IABP alone, 25.1% in quintile 1 vs 15.2% in quintile 5; ECMO, 73.7% in quintile 1 in 67.4% in quintile 5). Adjusted ORs for in-hospital mortality decreased as case volume increased (IABP alone, 0.63 [0.58-0.68] in quintile 5; ECMO, 0.73 [0.65-0.82] in quintile 5, with the lowest quintile as reference) but did not decrease significantly in the Impella (0.90 [0.58-1.39] in tertile 3, with the lowest tertile as reference). In the continuous models with the case volume as a continuous variable, adjusted ORs for in-hospital mortality decreased to 28 IABP cases/year and 12 ECMO cases/year. They did not decrease or became almost flat above that.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher volumes of IABP and ECMO are associated with a lower mortality. There is an upper limit to the decline. Centralizing patients with refractory CS in a particular hospital might improve patient outcomes in each region.

Inverse ESPVR Estimation with Singularity Avoidance via Constrained EDPVR Parameter Optimization

Left ventricular end-systolic elastance Ees, as an index of cardiac contractility, can play a key role in continuous patient monitoring during cardiac treatment scenarios such as drug therapies. The clinical feasibility of Ees estimation remains challenging because most techniques have been built on left ventricular pressure and volume, which are difficult to measure or estimate in the regular ICU/CCU setting. The purpose of this paper is to propose and validate a novel approach to estimate Ees, which is independent of left ventricular pressure and volume. Our methods first derive an analytical representation of Ees as the inverse function of the gradient of the Frank-Starling Curve based on cardiac mechanics. Second, elucidating the mechanism of singularities in the inverse function, we derive multiple conditions in both end-systolic pressure-volume relationship (ESPVR) and end-diastolic pressure-volume relationship (EDPVR) parameters to avoid these singularities analytically. Third, we formulate a constrained nonlinear least squares problem to optimize both ESPVR and EDPVR parameters simultaneously to avoid singularities. The effectiveness of the proposed method in avoiding singularities was evaluated in an animal experiment. Compared to the conventional Ees estimation by linear regression, our proposed method reproduced in-vivo hemodynamics more accurately when simulating the estimated Ees variation during drug administration. Our method can be applied using the available data in the regular ICU/CCU setting. The improved clinical feasibility can support not only physicians' decision-making, including adjusting drug dosages in current clinical treatment, but also a closed-loop hemodynamic control system requiring accurate continuous Ees estimation.

Left Ventricular Outflow Obstruction From Mechanical Circulatory Support in Critical Aortic Stenosis: A Cautionary Tale

We submit a cautionary tale of a patient with critical aortic stenosis presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock, who underwent balloon aortic valvuloplasty, insertion of a transvalvular left percutaneous ventricular assist device and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention, with a post-operative course complicated by outflow obstruction from the device itself. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

[The Role of the Percutaneous Impella Pump in Anesthesia and Intensive Care]

The use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices and in particular the increasing use of the Impella device family has gained significant interest over the last two decades. Nowadays, its use plays a well-established key role in both the treatment of cardiogenic shock, and as a preventive and protective therapeutic option during high-risk procedures in both cardiac surgery and cardiology, such as complex percutaneous interventions (protected PCI). Thus, it is not surprising that the Impella device is more and more present in the perioperative setting and especially in patients on intensive care units. Despite the numerous advantages such as cardiac resting and hemodynamic stabilization, potential adverse events exist, which may lead to severe, but preventable complications, so that adequate education, early recognition of such events and a subsequent adequate management are crucial in patients with tMCS. This article provides an overview especially for anesthesiologists and intensivists focusing on technical basics, indications and contraindications for its use with special focus on the intra- and postoperative management. Furthermore, troubleshooting for most common complications for patients on Impella support is provided.

Acute heart failure: differential diagnosis and treatment

Acute heart failure is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome and is the first cause of unplanned hospitalization in people >65 years. Patients with heart failure may have different clinical presentations according to clinical history, pre-existing heart disease, and pattern of intravascular congestion. A comprehensive assessment of clinical, echocardiographic, and laboratory data should aid in clinical decision-making and treatment. In some cases, a more accurate evaluation of patient haemodynamics via a pulmonary artery catheter may be necessary to undertake and guide escalation and de-escalation of therapy, especially when clinical, echo, and laboratory data are inconclusive or in the presence of right ventricular dysfunction. Similarly, a pulmonary artery catheter may be useful in patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing mechanical circulatory support. With the subsequent de-escalation of therapy and haemodynamic stabilization, the implementation of guideline-directed medical therapy should be pursued to reduce the risk of subsequent heart failure hospitalization and death, paying particular attention to the recognition and treatment of residual congestion.

Management of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices in cath-lab and cardiac intensive care unit

Different temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices are available and can be used to maintain end-organ perfusion while reducing cardiac work and myocardial oxygen demand. tMCS can provide support to the right ventricle, left ventricle, or both, and its use can be considered in emergency situations such as cardiogenic shock or in elective procedures such as high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention to prevent haemodynamic deterioration. Invasive and, most importantly, non-invasive haemodynamic parameters should be taken into account when choosing the type of tMCS device and its initiation and weaning timing, determining the need for a device upgrade, and screening for complications. In this context, ultrasound tools, specifically echocardiography, can provide important data. This review aims to provide a description of the different tMCS devices, the invasive and non-invasive tools and parameters to guide their management, and their advantages and drawbacks.

Hemodynamic monitoring in cardiogenic shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition characterized by acute end-organ hypoperfusion due to inadequate cardiac output that can result in multiorgan failure, which may lead to death. The diminished cardiac output in CS leads to systemic hypoperfusion and maladaptive cycles of ischemia, inflammation, vasoconstriction, and volume overload. Obviously, the optimal management of CS needs to be readjusted in view of the predominant dysfunction, which may be guided by hemodynamic monitoring. Hemodynamic monitoring enables (1) characterization of the type of cardiac dysfunction and the degree of its severity, (2) very early detection of associated vasoplegia, (3) detection and monitoring of organ dysfunction and tissue oxygenation, and (4) guidance of the introduction and optimization of inotropes and vasopressors as well as the timing of mechanical support. It is now well documented that early recognition, classification, and precise phenotyping via early hemodynamic monitoring (e.g., echocardiography, invasive arterial pressure, and the evaluation of organ dysfunction and parameters derived from central venous catheterization) improve patient outcomes. In more severe disease, advanced hemodynamic monitoring with pulmonary artery catheterization and the use of transpulmonary thermodilution devices is useful to facilitate the right timing of the indication, weaning from mechanical cardiac support, and guidance on inotropic treatments, thus helping to reduce mortality. In this review, we detail the different parameters relevant to each monitoring approach and the way they can be used to support optimal management of these patients.

Update on cardiogenic shock: from detection to team management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The following review is intended to provide a summary of contemporary cardiogenic shock (CS) profiling and diagnostic strategies, including biomarker and hemodynamic-based (invasive and noninvasive) monitoring, discuss clinical differences in presentation and trajectory between acute myocardial infarction (AMI)-CS and heart failure (HF)-CS, describe transitions to native heart recovery and heart replacement therapies with a focus on tailored management and emerging real-world data, and emphasize trends in team-based initiatives and interventions for cardiogenic shock including the integration of protocol-driven care.

RECENT FINDINGS

This document provides a broad overview of contemporary scientific consensus statements as well as data derived from randomized controlled clinical trials and observational registry working groups focused on cardiogenic shock management.

SUMMARY

This review highlights the increasingly important role of pulmonary artery catheterization in AMI-CS and HF-CS cardiogenic shock and advocates for routine application of algorithmic approaches with interdisciplinary care pathways. Cardiogenic shock algorithms facilitate the integration of clinical, hemodynamic, and imaging data to determine the most appropriate patient hemodynamic support platform to achieve adequate organ perfusion and decongestion.

Review of Pathophysiology of Cardiogenic Shock and Escalation of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex clinical entity that continues to carry a high risk of mortality. The landscape of CS management has changed with the advent of several temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices designed to provide hemodynamic support. It remains challenging to understand the role of different temporary MCS devices in patients with CS, as many of these patients are critically ill, requiring complex care with multiple MCS device options. Each temporary MCS device can provide different types and levels of hemodynamic support. It is important to understand the risk/benefit profile of each one of them for appropriate device selection in patients with CS.

RECENT FINDINGS

MCS may be beneficial in CS patients through augmentation of cardiac output with subsequent improvement of systemic perfusion. Selecting the optimal MCS device depends on several variables including the underlying etiology of CS, clinical strategy of MCS use (bridge to recovery, bridge to transplant or durable MCS, or abridge to decision), amount of hemodynamic support needed, associated respiratory failure, and institutional preference. Furthermore, it is even more challenging to determine the appropriate time to escalate from one MCS device to another or combine different MCS devices. In this review, we discuss the current available data published in the literature on the management of CS and propose a standardized approach for escalation of MCS devices in patients with CS. Shock teams can play an important role to help in hemodynamic-guided management and algorithm-based step-by-step approach in early initiation and escalation of temporary MCS devices at different stages of CS. It is important to define the etiology of CS, and stage of shock and recognize univentricular vs biventricular shock for appropriate device selection and escalation of therapy.

A simplified echocardiographic formula to estimate cardiac index in the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Measurement of cardiac index (CI) is crucial in the hemodynamic assessment of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). The most reliable trans-thoracic echocardiography (TTE) technique for CI estimation is the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) Doppler method that requires, among other parameters, the LVOT cross-sectional area (CSA) measurement. However, inherent and practical disadvantages, mostly related to the ICU setting, hamper LVOT-CSA assessment. In this study, we aimed to validate a simplified formula, leveraging on LVOT-velocity time integral (VTI) and heart rate (HR) only, for non-invasive estimation of CI in ICU patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We prospectively enrolled 50 consecutive patients admitted to our ICU requiring pulmonary artery catheterization (PAC) over a one-year period. For each patient we measured the CI by PAC (CI_PAC) and TTE. The latter was obtained both with the "traditional formula" (traditional CI_TTE), requiring LVOT-CSA assessment, and our new "simplified formula" (simplified CI_TTE). The correlation between the simplified CI_TTE and CI_PAC was strong (r = 0.81) and resulted significantly greater than the traditional CI_TTE and CI_PAC correlation (r = 0.70; p < 0.05 for Pearson r coefficients comparison). Both TTE-based CI showed an acceptable agreement (+0.19 ± 0.48 L/min/m² for simplified CI_TTE and - 0.18 ± 0.58 L/min/m² for traditional CI_TTE) with the reference CI_PAC.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we validated a practical approach, leveraging on TTE LVOT-VTI and HR only, for non-invasive estimation of CI in ICU patients.

Longitudinal Validation of Right Ventricular Pressure Monitoring for the Assessment of Right Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction in a Large Animal Ischemic Model

Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in intensive care and cardiac surgery. Early detection of RV dysfunction may be facilitated by continuous monitoring of RV waveform obtained from a pulmonary artery catheter. The objective is to evaluate the extent to which RV pressure monitoring can detect changes in RV systolic performance assess by RV end-systolic elastance (E_es) following the development of an acute RV ischemic in a porcine model.

HYPOTHESIS

RV pressure monitoring can detect changes in RV systolic performance assess by RV E_es following the development of an acute RV ischemic model.

METHODS AND MODELS

Acute ischemic RV dysfunction was induced by progressive embolization of microsphere in the right coronary artery to mimic RV dysfunction clinically experienced during cardiopulmonary bypass separation caused by air microemboli. RV hemodynamic performance was assessed using RV pressure waveform-derived parameters and RV E_es obtained using a conductance catheter during inferior vena cava occlusions.

RESULTS

Acute ischemia resulted in a significant reduction in RV E_es from 0.26 mm Hg/mL (interquartile range, 0.16-0.32 mm Hg/mL) to 0.14 mm Hg/mL (0.11-0.19 mm Hg/mL; p < 0.010), cardiac output from 6.3 L/min (5.7-7 L/min) to 4.5 (3.9-5.2 L/min; p = 0.007), mean systemic arterial pressure from 72 mm Hg (66-74 mm Hg) to 51 mm Hg (46-56 mm Hg; p < 0.001), and mixed venous oxygen saturation from 65% (57-72%) to 41% (35-45%; p < 0.001). Linear mixed-effect model analysis was used to assess the relationship between E_es and RV pressure-derived parameters. The reduction in RV E_es best correlated with a reduction in RV maximum first derivative of pressure during isovolumetric contraction (dP/dt_max) and single-beat RV E_es. Adjusting RV dP/dt_max for heart rate resulted in an improved surrogate of RV E_es.

INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS

Stepwise decreases in RV E_es during acute ischemic RV dysfunction were accurately tracked by RV dP/dt_max derived from the RV pressure waveform.

New Developments in Continuous Hemodynamic Monitoring of the Critically Ill Patient

Hemodynamic monitoring is a cornerstone in the assessment of patients with circulatory shock. Timely recognition of hemodynamic compromise and proper optimisation is essential to ensure adequate tissue perfusion and maintain renal, hepatic, abdominal, and cerebral functions. Hemodynamic monitoring has significantly evolved since the first inception of the pulmonary artery catheter more than 50 years ago. Bedside echocardiography, when combined with noninvasive and minimally invasive technologies, provides tools to monitor and quantify the cardiac output to promptly react and improve hemodynamic management in an acute care setting. Commonly used technologies include noninvasive pulse-wave analysis, pulse-wave transit time, thoracic bioimpedance and bioreactance, esophageal Doppler, minimally invasive pulse-wave analysis, transpulmonary thermodilution, and pulmonary artery catheter. These monitoring strategies are reviewed here, along with detailed analysis of their operating mode, particularities, and limitations. The use of artificial intelligence to enhance performance and effectiveness of hemodynamic monitoring is reviewed to apprehend future possibilities.

Effects of Escalating Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients With Worsening Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock-related mortality is substantial, and temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are frequently used. The authors aimed to describe patient characteristics and outcomes in patients with worsening cardiogenic shock requiring escalation of temporary MCS devices.

METHODS

Worsening cardiogenic shock was defined as persistent hypotension, increasing doses of vasopressors/inotropes, worsening hypoperfusion, or worsening invasive hemo-dynamics. Escalation of temporary MCS devices was defined as adding or exchanging an existing MCS device. Variables were evaluated by logistic regression models and receiver operating characteristic curves.

RESULTS

From July 1, 2016, to July 1, 2018, a total of 81 consecutive patients experienced worsening cardiogenic shock requiring temporary MCS escalation. The etiology of cardiogenic shock was heterogeneous (33.3% acute myocardial infarction and 61.7% decompen-sated heart failure). Younger age (<62 years), lower body mass index (<28.7 kg/m2), lower preescalation lactate levels (<3.1 mmol/L), higher postescalation blood pressure (>85 mm Hg), and lower postescalation lactate levels (<2.9 mmol/L) were associated with greater odds of survival. The presence of a pulmonary artery catheter at the time of escalation was associated with greater odds of survival (P = .05). Escalation of temporary MCS in Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions stage E shock was associated with 100% mortality (P = .05). The rate of overall survival to discharge was 32%.

CONCLUSION

Patients requiring temporary MCS escalation represent a high-risk cohort. Further work is needed to improve outcomes in this patient population.

Reflecting on the advancements of HFrEF therapies over the last two decades and predicting what is yet to come

What was once considered a topic best avoided, managing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has become the focus of many drug and device therapies. While the four pillars of guideline-directed medical therapies have successfully reduced heart failure hospitalizations, and some have even impacted cardiovascular mortality in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), patient-reported outcomes have emerged as important endpoints that merit greater emphasis in future studies. The prospect of an oral inotrope seems more probable now as targets for drug therapies have moved from neurohormonal modulation to intracellular mechanisms and direct cardiac myosin stimulation. While we have come a long way in safely providing durable mechanical circulatory support to patients with advanced HFrEF, several percutaneous device therapies have emerged, and many are under investigation. Biomarkers have shown promise in not only improving our ability to diagnose incident heart failure but also our potential to implicate specific pathophysiological pathways. The once-forgotten concept of discordance between pressure and volume, the forgotten splanchnic venous and lymphatic compartments, have all emerged as promising targets for diagnosing and treating heart failure in the not-so-distant future. The increase in heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (CS) has revived interest in defining optimal perfusion targets and designing RCTs in CS. Rapid developments in remote monitoring, telemedicine, and artificial intelligence promise to change the face of heart failure care. In this state-of-the-art review, we reminisce about the past, highlight the present, and predict what might be the future of HFrEF therapies.

Proportional pulmonary pulse pressure: A new index to assess response to veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

BACKGROUND

Based on theoretical physiology, the ratio of pulmonary artery pulse pressure to mean pulmonary pressure (PP-MPAP), termed proportional pulmonary pulse pressure, provides a measure of coupling between the right ventricle and the pulmonary circulation. This study tested the hypothesis that lower PP-MPAP ratio was associated with left ventricular (LV) distension in patients with cardiogenic shock who underwent extracorporeal life support (ECLS).

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational single-centre study of 22 patients with cardiogenic shock who underwent ECLS as the primary support modality without and with LV distension and Impella unloading. The relationship between post-support PP-MPAP and 12-hour lactate clearance was also assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 22 patients: 10 patients underwent additional Impella unloading due to LV distension (Group 1) and 12 patients on ECLS only without LV distension (Group 2). As predicted by the theoretical model, PP-MPAP on ECLS dropped in Group 1 (pre-Impella) from 0.473 ± 0.067 to 0.372 ± 0.087, p < 0.001; but increased in Group 2 patients without LV distension (0.518 ± 0.070 to 0.549 ± 0.072, p = 0.002). Impella support in Group 1 increased PP-MPAP (0.372 ± 0.087 to 0.615 ± 0.094, p < 0.001). On multiple regression analysis, post-support PP-MPAP was significantly associated with 12-hour lactate clearance.

CONCLUSION

Changes in PP-MPAP is associated hemodynamic response to ECLS and 12-hour lactate clearance. This simple parameter may guide therapeutic optimization in cardiogenic shock and ECLS.