The science of safety: complications associated with the use of mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock and best practices to maximize safety

Factors associated with Acute Limb Ischemia in Cardiogenic Shock and downstream Clinical Outcomes: Insights from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group

BACKGROUND

There are limited data depicting the prevalence and ramifications of acute limb ischemia (ALI) among cardiogenic shock (CS) patients.

METHODS

We employed data from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group (CSWG), a consortium including 33 sites. We constructed a multi-variable logistic regression to examine the association between clinical factors and ALI, we generated another logistic regression model to ascertain the association of ALI with mortality.

RESULTS

There were 7,070 patients with CS and 399 (5.6%) developed ALI. Patients with ALI were more likely to be female (40.4% versus 29.4%) and have peripheral arterial disease (13.8% versus 8.3%). Stratified by maximum SCAI shock stage, the rates of ALI were stage B 0.0%, stage C 1.8%, stage D 4.1%, and stage E 10.3%. Factors associated with higher risk for ALI included: peripheral vascular disease OR 2.24 (95% CI: 1.53 - 3.23; p < 0.01) and ≥ 2 mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices OR 1.66 (95% CI: 1.24 - 2.21, p < 0.01). ALI was highest for VA-ECMO patients (11.6%) or VA-ECMO + IABP/Impella CP (16.6%) yet use of distal perfusion catheters was less than 50%. Mortality was 38.0% for CS patients without ALI but 57.4% for CS patients with ALI. ALI was significantly associated with mortality, adjusted OR 1.40 (95% CI 1.01 - 1.95, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of ALI was 6% among CS patients. Factors most associated with ALI include peripheral vascular disease and multiple MCS devices. The downstream ramifications of ALI were dire with a considerably higher risk of mortality.

Outcome of Patients Managed by Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation During On-Hours and Off-Hours

Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pVADs) may be used in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) to stabilize hemodynamics and maintain sufficient end-organ perfusion. Vascular complications are commonly observed in patients with pVAD support. We aimed to assess the relationship between pVAD implantation time and access-site complication rates. This retrospective observational study included all patients who underwent pVAD insertion for the treatment of CS at our university hospital between 2014 and 2021 (n = 224). Depending on the pVAD insertion time, the patients were assigned to the on-hours (n = 120) or off-hours group (n = 104). Both groups had comparable baseline characteristics and comorbidities. The rate of access-site-related complications was higher in the off-hours group than in the on-hours group (26% vs. 10%, p = 0.002). Premature discontinuation of pVAD support to prevent limb ischemia or manage access-site bleeding was required more often in the off-hours group than in the on-hours group (14% vs. 5%, p = 0.016). Pre-existing peripheral artery disease and implantation time off-hours were independent predictors for access-siterelated vascular complications. In conclusion, patients with CS in whom pVAD was inserted during off-hours had higher rates of access-site-related complications and premature discontinuation of pVAD support than those in whom pVAD was inserted during on-hours.

Microaxial mechanical circulatory support after orthotopic heart transplantation

AIM

Use of microaxial mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has been reported for severe graft rejection or dysfunction after heart transplantation (HTx). We aimed to assess utilization patterns of microaxial MCS after HTx in adolescents (ages 18 and younger) and adults (ages 19 and older).

METHODS

Electronic search was performed to identify all relevant studies on post-HTx use of microaxial support in adults and adolescents. A total of 18 studies were selected and patient-level data were extracted for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

All patients (n=23), including adults (n=15) and adolescents (n=8), underwent Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) microaxial MCS after HTx. Median age was 36 [IQR 18-56] years (Adults, 52 [37-59]; adolescents, 16 [15-17]). Primary right ventricular graft dysfunction was an indication exclusively seen in the adults 40% (6/15), while acute graft rejection was present in 46.7% (7/15) of adults. Median time after transplant was 9 [0-32] months (Adults, 4 [0-32]; adolescents, 11 [4.5, 45]). Duration of Impella support was comparable between adults and adolescents (5 [2.5-8] vs 6 [5-8] days, p = 0.38). Overall improvement was observed both in median LV ejection fraction (23.5% [11.3-28] to 42% [37.8-47.3], p < 0.01) and cardiac index (1.8 [1.2-2.6] to 3 [2.5-3.1], p < 0.01). Retransplantation was required in four adolescents (50%, 4/8). Survival to discharge was achieved by 60.0% (9/15) of adults and 87.5% (7/8) of adolescents respectively (p = 0.37).

CONCLUSION

Indications for microaxial MCS appear to vary between adult and adolescent patients. Overall improvement in LVEF and cardiac index was observed, however, with suboptimal survival to discharge.

Prevalence of bleeding events in real-world Japanese registry for Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device

PURPOSE

Bleeding complication is a critical risk factor for outcomes of acute heart failure patients requiring mechanical circulatory support (MCS), including percutaneous catheter-type heart pumps (Impella). The Japanese registry for Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device (J-PVAD) is an ongoing, large-scale, real-world registry to characterize Japanese patients requiring Impella. Here we analyzed bleeding complication profiles in patients who received Impella.

METHODS

All consecutive Japanese patients who received Impella from October 2017 to January 2020 were enrolled. The 30-day survival and bleeding complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 1344 patients were included: 653 patients received Impella alone, 685 patients received a combination of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and Impella (ECPELLA), and 6 patients had failed Impella delivery. Overall 30-day survival was 67.0%, with Impella alone at 81.9% and ECPELLA at 52.7%. Overall bleeding/hematoma adverse events with a relation or not-excluded relation to Impella was 6.92%. Among them, the rates of hematoma and bleeding from medical device access sites were 1.41% and 4.09%, respectively. There was no difference between etiologies for these events.

CONCLUSION

This study represents the first 3-year survival and the safety profile focused on bleeding adverse events from the J-PVAD registry. The results show that the real-world frequency of bleeding adverse events for patients who received Impella was an expected range from previous reports, and future real-world studies should aim to expand this data set to improve outcomes and adverse events.

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.

Aortic thrombosis with visceral malperfusion during circulatory support with a combination of Impella and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock

Although veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has been used to aid myocardial recovery in patients with postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS), it has been associated with adverse effects. The combined use of VA-ECMO and Impella (ECPELLA) for PCCS, however, has been reported to be efficacious with few reports of thromboembolic events. We present a case of aortic thrombosis with visceral malperfusion during ECPELLA management for PCCS. We performed the Bentall procedure, mitral valve repair, tricuspid annuloplasty, and coronary artery bypass graft on a 73-year-old man admitted with congestive heart failure caused by annuloaortic ectasia, along with severe aortic and mitral regurgitation. VA-ECMO and Impella were required, since the cardiopulmonary bypass weaning was difficult. Impella was removed on postoperative day 4. On postoperative days 5 and 6, laboratory data showed worsening renal dysfunction, lactate levels, and acidosis. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography showed thrombosis in the celiac and superior mesenteric arteries. Aortic thrombectomy was performed. Hyperkalemia, caused by a reperfusion injury, resulted in ventricular fibrillation. Continuous hemodiafiltration improved the hyperkalemia. However, irreversible acidosis progressed, and the VA-ECMO flow rate could not be sustained. On postoperative day 7, the patient died. Perioperative use of Impella for PCCS may be effective in improving postoperative cardiac function. When sudden organ failure is observed after surgery, it is necessary to not only keep the exacerbation of cardiogenic shock in mind, but also the possibility of thrombosis.

Standardized Definitions for Cardiogenic Shock Research and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: Scientific Expert Panel From the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC)

The Shock Academic Research Consortium is a multi-stakeholder group, including representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies, industry, and payers, convened to develop pragmatic consensus definitions useful for the evaluation of clinical trials enrolling patients with cardiogenic shock, including trials evaluating mechanical circulatory support devices. Several in-person and virtual meetings were convened between 2020 and 2022 to discuss the need for developing the standardized definitions required for evaluation of mechanical circulatory support devices in clinical trials for cardiogenic shock patients. The expert panel identified key concepts and topics by performing literature reviews, including previous clinical trials, while recognizing current challenges and the need to advance evidence-based practice and statistical analysis to support future clinical trials. For each category, a lead (primary) author was assigned to perform a literature search and draft a proposed definition, which was presented to the subgroup. These definitions were further modified after feedback from the expert panel meetings until a consensus was reached. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel recommendations focused on outcome definitions, including efficacy and safety.

Evolution of concomitant use of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support with Impella in cardiogenic shock: From percutaneous femoral Impella to axillary Impella 5.5

BACKGROUND

Little is known about safety and efficacy of the use of Impella 5.5 compared to previous iterations in the setting of Impella with Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support as ECPELLA.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who were treated by ECPELLA with surgically implanted axillary Impella 5.5 (N = 13) were compared with patients supported by ECPELLA with percutaneous femoral Impella CP or 2.5 (Control, N = 13).

RESULTS

The total ECPELLA flow was higher in ECPELLA 5.5 group (6.9 vs. 5.4 L/min, p = 0.019). Actual hospital survival was higher than predicted and comparable in both groups (ECPELLA 5.5, 61.5% vs. Control, 53.8%, p = 0.691). Both total device complications (ECPELLA 5.5, 7.7% vs. Control, 46.1%, p = 0.021) and Impella-specific complications (ECPELLA 5.5, 0% vs. Control, 30.8%, p = 0.012) were significantly lower in the ECPELLA 5.5 group.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of Impella 5.5 in the setting of ECPELLA provides greater hemodynamic support with a lower risk of complications compared to Impella CP or 2.5.

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.

IMPELLA VERSUS EXTRACORPOREAL MEMBRANE OXYGENATION IN CARDIOGENIC SHOCK: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

ABSTRACT

Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) carries high mortality. The roles of specific mechanical circulatory support (MCS) systems are unclear. We compared the clinical outcomes of Impella versus extracorporal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with CS. Methods: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis that was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guidelines. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception through May 10, 2022) for studies comparing the outcomes of Impella versus ECMO in CS. We used random-effects models to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CIs). End points included in-hospital, 30-day, and 12-month all-cause mortality, successful weaning from MCS, bridge to transplant, all reported bleeding, stroke, and acute kidney injury. Results: A total of 10 studies consisting of 1,827 CS patients treated with MCS were included in the analysis. The risk of in-hospital all-cause mortality was significantly lower with Impella compared with ECMO (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-1.00; P = 0.05), whereas there was no statistically significant difference in 30-day (RR, 0.97, 95% CI, 0.82-1.16; P = 0.77) and 12-month mortality (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74-1.11; P = 0.32). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of successful weaning (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.81-1.15; P = 0.70) and bridging to transplant (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58-1.35; P = 0.56). There was less risk of bleeding and stroke in the Impella group compared with the ECMO group. Conclusions: In patients with CS, the use of Impella is associated with lower rates of in-hospital mortality, bleeding, and stroke than ECMO. Future randomized studies with adequate sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings.

Escalating and De-escalating Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

The use of temporary mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock has increased dramatically despite a lack of randomized controlled trials or evidence guiding clinical decision-making. Recommendations from professional societies on temporary mechanical circulatory support escalation and de-escalation are limited. This scientific statement provides pragmatic suggestions on temporary mechanical circulatory support device selection, escalation, and weaning strategies in patients with common cardiogenic shock causes such as acute decompensated heart failure and acute myocardial infarction. The goal of this scientific statement is to serve as a resource for clinicians making temporary mechanical circulatory support management decisions and to propose standardized approaches for their use until more robust randomized clinical data are available.

Incidence and Outcomes of Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients With Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) devices are increasingly used in patients with cardiogenic shock as a bridge to recovery or bridge to decision to advanced heart failure therapies. Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common complication that can be catastrophic. Because of the paucity of data describing the association of GIB with pMCS, we analyzed this population using the United States National Inpatient Sample database. We performed a retrospective study in patients with pMCS devices who had GIB during the index hospitalization using the National Inpatient Sample. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine independent predictors of GIB in these patients. A total of 466,627 patients were included. We observed an overall increase in the incidence of adjusted GIB from 2.9% to 3.5% (p = 0.0025) from 2005 to 2014. In comparison to patients without GIB, those with GIB had significantly higher in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and hospitalization cost. In addition to the usual co-morbid conditions, the presence of small bowel and colonic ischemia, colon cancer, diverticulosis, chronic liver disease, and peptic ulcer disease were noted to be significant predictors of GIB for all (p <0.001). In conclusion, patients with pMCS and GIB have higher in-hospital mortality, longer length of stay, and higher cost of hospitalization. Awareness of patient risk factors for bleeding and gastrointestinal disorders are important before the use of mechanical circulatory support devices because they are associated with a substantially higher risk for bleeding.

Post-Closure Technique to Reduce Vascular Complications Related to Impella CP

BACKGROUND

Use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support has grown exponentially. Vascular complications remain a growing concern and best practices for device removal do not exist. We describe a novel post-closure technique for the next generation Impella CP removal and immediate hemostasis.

METHODS

This study is a single center, retrospective, exploratory analysis of 11 consecutive patients receiving an Impella CP for either high-risk PCI or cardiogenic shock and then referred for post-closure compared to 20 patients receiving manual compression for Impella CP removal between 2017 and 2019.

RESULTS

Mean age range was 62.7-65.4 years and 50-65% male between groups. Average duration of Impella CP treatment ranged from 3.4 to 5.2 days. Patients referred for post-closure had significantly lower rates of all-cause adverse vascular events (0% versus 40%; n = 0/11 versus n = 8/20; p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in BARC 3 or greater bleeding, transfusion requirement, hospitalization duration or intensive care duration between removal strategies.

CONCLUSION

The novel post-closure technique may significantly reduce vascular complications associated with device removal and may improve clinical outcomes for these critically ill patients.

Novel Modification of Impella Sheath to Prevent Limb Ischemia

Limb ischemia is a dreaded complication of large-bore access during prolonged Impella support. We report a novel technique to modify 14F Impella sheath by creating two perfusion holes in the dorsal sheath surface to enable distal limb perfusion via dead space surrounding 9F Impella catheter in flow-occlusive iliofemoral arteries.

Single center first year experience and outcomes with Impella 5.5 left ventricular assist device

Background

The Impella 5.5® was approved by the FDA for use for mechanical circulatory support up to 14 days in late 2019 at limited centers in the United States. Our single center’s experience with Impella 5.5® can expand the overall understanding for achieving successful patient outcomes as well as provide support for the expansion of its FDA-approved use.

Methods

This study is an IRB-approved single-center retrospective cohort analysis of hospitalized adult patient characteristics and outcomes in cases where the Impella 5.5® was utilized for mechanical circulatory support.

Results

A total of 26 implanted Impella 5.5® devices were identified in 24 hospitalized patients at our institution from January 2020 to January 2021. The overall survival rate during index hospitalization was 75%. Eleven Impella 5.5® devices were identified in 10 patients with an average device implantation greater than 14 days. Average device implantation for this subgroup was 27 days with a range of 15–80 days. Survival rate for Impella 5.5® use greater than 14 days was 67%. In the entire cohort and subgroup of device implantation > 14 days, evidence of end organ damage improved with Impella 5.5® use. Complications in our cohort and subgroup of device implantation > 14 days were similar to previously reported complication incidence of axillary inserted LVAD devices.

Conclusions

Our institution’s experience with the Impella 5.5® has been strongly positive with favorable outcomes and helps to establish the Impella 5.5® as a viable option for mechanical circulatory support beyond 14 days.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13019-022-01871-1.

Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock: a critical appraisal

INTRODUCTION

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition frequently encounter in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD).

AREAS COVERED

Despite prompt revascularization, in particular percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and therapeutic and technological advances, the mortality rate for CS related to AMI remains high. Differently from hemodynamically stable setting, a culprit lesion-only (CLO) revascularization strategy is currently suggested in AMI-CS patients, based on the results of a recent randomized evidence burdened by several limitations and conflicting results from non-randomized studies. Furthermore, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have raised as a key therapeutic option in CS, especially in case of an early implantation without delaying revascularization and before irreversible organ damage has occurred. We provide an in-depth review of current evidences on optimal revascularization strategies of multivessel CAD in infarct-related CS, assessing the role of MCS devices, and highlighting the importance of shock teams and medical care system networks to effectively impact on clinical outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

Emerging observational experience suggested that an early implantation of MCS (prior to PCI), the performance of an extensive revascularization and the implementation of shock teams and networks are key factors for improving clinical outcomes.

Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Pathophysiology, Evaluation and Management Considerations: Review of Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock

Despite increasing prevalence in critical care units, cardiogenic shock related to HF (HF-CS) is incompletely understood and distinct from acute myocardial infarction related CS. This review highlights the pathophysiology, evaluation, and contemporary management of HF-CS.

Complications After Heart Transplantation According to the Type of Pretransplant Circulatory/Ventricular Support

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to analyze postcardiac transplant complications in patients who received transplants with short-term mechanical ventricular assist devices and to compare complications according to the type of device.

METHODS

Ambispective and consecutive study of urgent heart transplants from 2015 to 2019. Pediatric transplants, retransplants, and combined transplants were excluded. A total of 45 patients were analyzed in 4 groups: (1) venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) implanted <10 days before heart transplant (HTx) (n = 17); (2) ECMO implanted for more than 10 days (n = 8); (3) Levitronix Centrimag implanted in INTERMACS 2 to 3 patients (n = 13); and (4) Levitronix Centrimag implanted in INTERMACS 2 patients (n = 7). ECMO assistance was in INTERMACS 2 and severe right ventricular dysfunction. Levitronix Centrimag was implanted in patients with preserved right ventricular function.

RESULTS

Primary graft failure associated with the need for ECMO was more frequent in patients with ECMO than with Levitronix (P < .05). When comparing the 2 groups with ECMO, an implant more than 10 days before HTx was associated, after transplant, with a longer stay in the critical care unit (P = .02), higher mortality (P = .03), and an increase in complications in general. When comparing the 2 groups with Levitronix, all the parameters studied were much better when the Levitronix was implanted in INTERMACS 2-3 (P < .05). On the other hand, all cases of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary thromboembolism occurred in patients who were assisted with ECMO.

CONCLUSIONS

HTx with mechanical assist devices is associated with significant complications. ECMO produces more complications than the Levitronix Centrimag, although they are related to the days of implantation. The best group are patients implanted with a Levitronix in INTERMACS 2-3.

Analysis of the Intrahospital and Long-Term Survival of Heart Transplant Patients With a Short-Term Mechanical Assistance Device

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare early and late survival among patients who have undergone heart transplantation (HTx) with a short-term mechanical assist device.

METHODS

This was an ambispective, single-center, consecutive study of patients undergoing urgent HTx for 5 years. Pediatric transplants, retransplants, and combined transplants were excluded. Forty-five patients were included. Four groups were analyzed: those with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) implanted <10 days before HTx; those with ECMO implanted for >10 days; patients classified as INTERMACS 2 to 3 with Levitronix Centrimag implanted; and those classified as INTERMACS 2 with Levitronix Centrimag implanted. Survival and the influence of orotracheal intubation (OI) at the time of transplantation were compared.

RESULTS

There were differences in in-hospital mortality (P = .03) and total mortality (P = .06). The groups with the highest risk for mortality were those who carried ECMO for >10 days before transplantation or those classified as INTERMACS 2 with Levitronix Centrimag implanted. In these groups, the need for posttransplant circulatory support was also greater (P = .04) as was the length of stay in critical care (P = .02). The need for OI during the days of care and until transplantation had a negative effect on survival in all groups (P < .1).

CONCLUSIONS

There are different risk subgroups among patients who are transplanted with a circulatory/ventricular assist device. The lowest mortality occurs when the days of ECMO implantation are <10 and when the implanted device is a Levitronix Centrimag in INTERMACS 2 to 3 profile, particularly when the patient reaches the HTx without requiring OI.

A Pragmatic Approach to Weaning Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support: A State-of-the-Art Review

Temporary mechanical circulatory support (TMCS) provides short-term support to patients with or at risk of refractory cardiogenic shock. Although indications, contraindications, and complications of TMCS may guide device selection, optimal strategies for device weaning and explant remain poorly defined. Under the revised adult heart allocation policy implemented by the United Nations for Organ Sharing in October 2018, rejustification of heart transplant listing status includes demonstrating TMCS dependency with attempted device wean trials. However, standardized device-specific weaning and explant protocols have not been proposed or evaluated. This review highlights when to use percutaneous TMCS in cardiogenic shock, with a focus on weaning and explant considerations. Terminology for important concepts that guide device escalation, de-escalation, and explantation have been defined. Clinical, hemodynamic, metabolic, and imaging features have been defined, which can guide a tailored approach to TMCS weaning and explant based on the approach used at the Cleveland Clinic. A narrative review of published studies that have reported TMCS weaning protocols and survey results of member centers from CS-MCS working group centers is also provided. Future research is needed to better understand optimal timing and implementation of standardized protocols to achieve successful TMCS weaning and explant.

Increasing stroke events in patients with ST elevation myocardial infraction and cardiogenic shock: A cause for concern

The incidence of stroke in patients with STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is much higher than in those without CS. Use of percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS) is associated with a higher incidence of stroke in these patients; however, a causal relationship cannot be inferred. Careful attention should be given to stroke mitigation and management strategies in this cohort and judicious use of MCS is warranted. Future prospective clinical studies are needed to examine the impact of MCS on stroke incidence in these patients and further validate these clinically important findings.

Optimising clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a statement from the 2020 Critical Care Clinical Trialists Workshop

Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) is a critical syndrome with a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Current management consists of coronary revascularisation, vasoactive drugs, and circulatory and ventilatory support, which are tailored to patients mainly on the basis of clinicians' experience rather than evidence-based recommendations. For many therapeutic interventions in AMICS, randomised clinical trials have not shown a meaningful survival benefit, and a disproportionately high rate of neutral and negative results has been reported. In this context, an accurate definition of the AMICS syndrome for appropriate patient selection and optimisation of study design are warranted to achieve meaningful results and pave the way for new, evidence-based therapeutic options. In this Position Paper, we provide a statement of priorities and recommendations agreed by a multidisciplinary group of experts at the Critical Care Clinical Trialists Workshop in February, 2020, for the optimisation and harmonisation of clinical trials in AMICS. Implementation of proposed criteria to define the AMICS population-moving beyond a cardio-centric definition to that of a systemic disease-and steps to improve the design of clinical trials could lead to improved outcomes for patients with this life-threatening syndrome.

The Rise of Endovascular Mechanical Circulatory Support Use for Cardiogenic Shock and High Risk Coronary Intervention: Considerations and Challenges

Introduction: Cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction and decompensated advanced heart failure remains a source of significant morbidity and mortality. Endovascular mechanical circulatory support devices including intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (Impella and Tandemheart pumps), and veno-arterial extracorporeal oxygenation (VA-ECMO) are utilized for a broadening range of indications.Areas covered: This narrative review explores the specific devices, their distinctive hemodynamic profiles, and practical considerations. Furthermore, reviewed are the trials evaluating device outcomes which have generated significant controversy within the field of heart failure and shock. New applications and future directions are discussed.Expert opinion: Use of endovascular mechanical circulatory support has increased over the last decade, though evidence supporting their use is lacking. Development of large-scale prospective registries and clinical classification systems will facilitate patient enrollment and inform trial design. Furthermore, expansion of indications for these devices is revolutionizing how the field of heart failure and cardiogenic shock thinks about hemodynamic support. The ability to tailor therapy to a patient's specific hemodynamic profile appears to be the future of cardiogenic shock management.