Implementation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team and Clinical Outcomes (INOVA-SHOCK Registry): Observational and Retrospective Study

Using Arterial Recoil for Large Bore Access Closure After Impella Assist Device Removal

The use of Impella assist device for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions and cardiogenic shock has increased in the last decade and requires a large bore arterial access (LBA). However, LBA closure following Impella removal is associated with significant complications. Herein, we describe the safety and efficacy of a novel method of LBA closure using arterial recoil following Impella removal. We performed a retrospective review of electronic medical records of patients who underwent LBA closure using this method from July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2022. The procedure involves controlled downsizing of the arterial sheath from 12 French (Fr) to 6 Fr catheters with intermittent compression to allow patent hemostasis facilitated by arterial recoil. Baseline characteristics and outcomes including closure success, immediate/delayed bleeding, and access site complications were included. Of 103 patients with Impella placement, 20 (19%) underwent LBA closure with this method. Patients were predominantly male (80%) and White (55%) with a mean age of 65 ± 16 years. After downsizing of the femoral sheath to 6 Fr, 14 patients underwent manual compression, 3 patients had a 6 Fr catheter left in place to maintain access, and 3 patients underwent placement of a Perclose or Vascade device. Successful LBA closure was performed in all patients with no immediate or delayed bleeding complications. Five patients (25%) died inpatient; the deaths were unrelated to complications of Impella removal. In conclusion, LBA closure post-Impella removal with this novel method was safe and effective. Further prospective studies are needed to ascertain its comparative efficacy.

Shock Teams: A Contemporary Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

Clinical indications and outcomes of Impella devices for severe cardiogenic shock in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can present with significant cardiac dysfunction, including cardiogenic shock. Mechanical circulatory support with an Impella device may be utilized in these patients to support and offload native right ventricle (RV) and left ventricle (LV) functions. This systematic review aims to describe clinical indications, management, laboratory data, and outcomes in patients with severe cardiogenic shock from COVID-19 treated with an Impella device.

Methods

A PRISMA-directed systematic review was performed and prospectively registered in PROSPERO. The databases accessed included PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and ScienceDirect. Quality and risk of bias assessments were completed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for case reports.

Results

A total of 16 records were included in the qualitative synthesis; 8/16 (50%) of the patients were men. The average age was 39 years (SD: 14.7). The biventricular Impella (BiPella) approach was recorded in 3/16 (18.75%) patients. A total of 4/16 (25%) individuals required renal replacement therapy (RRT). Single-device usage was observed in three cases: 2/16 Impella CP (12.5%) and 1/16 Impella RP (6.25%). Treatment of COVID-19 myocarditis included a wide range of antivirals and immunomodulators; 8/16 (50%) cases needed ECMO (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) support. Overall, only 2/16 (11.7%) individuals died.

Conclusions

Sixteen reported individuals have received an Impella implanted with a mortality rate of 11.7%. Concurrent use of RRT and ECMO implantation was often observed. Overall, the Impella device is an effective and safe strategy in the management of COVID-19-related cardiogenic shock. Future studies should include long-term results.

Time for a rethink in cardiogenic shock: the shock to survival framework document

Cardiogenic shock remains a time-critical, complex syndrome that continues to present challenges to clinicians and healthcare systems. Despite advances in the fields of cardiovascular and critical care medicine, mortality remains high. This article summarises the recent shock to survival document, which outlined the current and ideal future state of cardiogenic shock care nationally to improve patient outcomes. Shock to survival emphasises the need for education and training in the early recognition of the hypoperfusion that is pathognomomic of cardiogenic shock. Improved provision of focused cardiac ultrasound is essential to confirm a cardiac cause. Early identification of the patient with cardiogenic shock should be supported by access to defined pathways of care, including specialist shock centres and multiprofessional teams with domain expertise and the capability to manage the myriad of causative aetiologies. Given the absence of high-quality data to inform practice nationally, robust datasets are an unmet need to inform best practice, guide design of clinical services and pathways and drive innovation through research and clinical trials.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and microaxial left ventricular assist device in cardiogenic shock: Choosing the right mechanical circulatory support to improve outcomes

Objective

To evaluate the outcomes of patients supported with Impella (CP/5.0) or venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for cardiogenic shock according to shock phenotype. The primary end point was 30-day survival.

Methods

A retrospective study of patients supported with Impella (CP/5.0) or VA-ECMO between 2010 and 2020 was performed. Patients were grouped according to 1 of 2 shock phenotypes: isolated left ventricular (LV) dysfunction versus biventricular dysfunction or multiple organ failure (MOF). The local practice favors Impella for isolated LV dysfunction and VA-ECMO for biventricular dysfunction or MOF.

Results

Among the 75 patients included, 17 (23%) had isolated LV dysfunction. Patients with biventricular dysfunction or MOF had a greater median lactate level compared with those with isolated LV dysfunction (7.9 [2.9-11.8] vs 3.8 [1.1-5.8] mmol/L, respectively). Among patients with isolated LV dysfunction, 30-day survival was 46% for the Impella group (n = 13) and 75% for VA-ECMO (n = 4). Among patients with biventricular dysfunction or MOF, 30-day survival was 9% for the Impella group (n = 11) and 28% for VA-ECMO (n = 47). Patients supported with Impella 5.0 had better 30-day survival compared with those supported with Impella CP, for both shock phenotypes (83% vs 14% and 14% vs 0%, respectively).

Conclusions

In this small cohort, patients supported with Impella for isolated LV dysfunction and VA-ECMO for biventricular dysfunction or MOF had acceptable survival at 30 days. Patients with biventricular dysfunction or MOF who were supported by Impella had the lowest survival rates. Patients with isolated LV dysfunction who were supported with VA-ECMO had good 30-day survival.

Mechanical Circulatory Support for Right Ventricular Failure

Right ventricular (RV) failure is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, with in-hospital mortality rates estimated as high as 70–75%. RV failure may occur following cardiac surgery in conjunction with left ventricular failure, or may be isolated in certain circumstances, such as inferior MI with RV infarction, pulmonary embolism or following left ventricular assist device placement. Medical management includes volume optimisation and inotropic and vasopressor support, and a subset of patients may benefit from mechanical circulatory support for persistent RV failure. Increasingly, percutaneous and surgical mechanical support devices are being used for RV failure. Devices for isolated RV support include percutaneous options, such as micro-axial flow pumps and extracorporeal centrifugal flow RV assist devices, surgically implanted RV assist devices and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. In this review, the authors discuss the indications, candidate selection, strategies and outcomes of mechanical circulatory support for RV failure.

Cardiogenic shock treated with temporary mechanical circulatory support in Brazil: The effect of learning curve

AIMS

Treatment with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has been proposed to mitigate mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS). However, there is a lack of data on MCS programs implementation and the effect of the learning curve on its outcomes in limited resources countries such as Brazil.

METHODS

Prospective cohort of patients with CS admitted in four tertiary-care centers treated with Impella CP or veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). Clinical outcomes were peri-procedural complications, short-term mortality rate, and the centers' learning curve. The cohort was divided into two periods: from April 2017 to July 2018 (n = 24), and from August 2018 to December 2020 (n = 25).

RESULTS

The study enrolled 49 patients [age 59 (43-63) years; 34 (70%) males]. The most common causes for CS were acute myocardial infarction in 22 (45%) and acute decompensation of chronic heart failure in 10 (20%). VA-ECMO was employed in 35 (71%) and Impella CP in 14 (29%) of patients. Overall complications occurred in 37 (76%) of patients, where major bleeding in 19 (38%) was the most common. The overall mortality rate was 61%, but it was lower in the second period (40%) in comparison to the first period (83%), p = 0.002. The learning curve analysis showed a decrease in the mortality rate after 40 consecutive cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a temporary MCS program for refractory CS in a limited resource country is feasible. The learning curve effect might have played a role on survival rate since high morbimortality has decreased within time reaching optimal results by the end of the study.

A Review of the Impella Devices

The use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) to provide acute haemodynamic support for cardiogenic shock or to support high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HRPCI) has grown over the past decade. There is currently no consensus on best practice regarding its use in these two distinct indications. Impella heart pumps (Abiomed) are intravascular microaxial blood pumps that provide temporary MCS during HRPCI or in the treatment of cardiogenic shock. The authors outline technical specifications of the individual Impella heart pumps and their accompanying technology, the Automated Impella Controller and SmartAssist, their indications for use and patient selection, implantation techniques, device weaning and escalation, closure strategies, anticoagulation regimens, complications, future directions and upcoming trials.

Systems of Care in Cardiogenic Shock

Outcomes for cardiogenic shock (CS) patients remain relatively poor despite significant advancements in primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and temporary circulatory support (TCS) technologies. Mortality from CS shows great disparities that seem to reflect large variations in access to care and physician practice patterns. Recent reports of different models to standardize care in CS have shown considerable potential at improving outcomes. The creation of regional, integrated, 3-tiered systems, would facilitate standardized interventions and equitable access to care. Multidisciplinary CS teams at Level I centers would direct care in a hub-and-spoke model through jointly developed protocols and real-time shared decision making. Levels II and III centers would provide early access to life-saving therapies and safe transfer to designated hub centers. In regions with large geographical distances, the implementation of telemedicine-cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) care can be an important resource for the creation of effective systems of care.

Regional Systems of Care in ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is a medical emergency with significant health care delivery challenges to ensure rapid triage and treatment. Several developments over the past decades have led to improved care delivery, decreased time to reperfusion, and decreased mortality. Still, significant challenges remain to further optimize the delivery of care for this patient population.

Invasive Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the most common cause of mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The SHOCK trial (Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock) demonstrated a survival benefit with early revascularization in patients with CS complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMICS) 20 years ago. After an initial improvement in mortality related to revascularization, mortality rates have plateaued. A recent Society of Coronary Angiography and Interventions classification scheme was developed to address the wide range of CS presentations. In addition, a recent scientific statement from the American Heart Association recommended the development of CS centers using standardized protocols for diagnosis and management of CS, including mechanical circulatory support devices (MCS). A number of CS programs have implemented various protocols for treating patients with AMICS, including the use of MCS, and have published promising results using such protocols. Despite this, practice patterns in the cardiac catheterization laboratory vary across health systems, and there are inconsistencies in the use or timing of MCS for AMICS. Furthermore, mortality benefit from MCS devices in AMICS has yet to be established in randomized clinical trials. In this article, we outline the best practices for the contemporary interventional management of AMICS, including coronary revascularization, the use of MCS, and special considerations such as the treatment of patients with AMICS with cardiac arrest.

Heart failure: role and point of view of cardiac intensivist

Heart failure is an acute or chronic syndrome where the heart is unable to provide adequate amount of oxygen to body tissues. The treatment of heart failure aims to give an immediate answer in terms of regression of volume overload and restoration of hemodynamic stability and then to ensure management of clinical exacerbation, reduction in hospital stay, and increasing of survival. The pharmacological treatment of heart failure includes drugs with different strength of evidence. When the patient is no more responsive to medical therapy a non-pharmacological approach may be required. The first step is cardiac resynchronization therapy and implantable cardiac defibrillator. Then hospitalization and inotropic support may be needed. When cardiac disease reaches the end stage, the severe decrease in multi organ perfusion requires a quick therapeutic response. This is a time dependent scenario, when mechanical circulatory support (MCS) plays a crucial role. MCS may be used as temporary hemodynamic support on situations where myocardial recovery is likely, such as after revascularization and in cases of fulminant acute myocarditis. Conversion to ventricular assist devices or transplantation should be considered if longer duration of MCS is required. Advances in the treatment of cardiogenic shock patients in terms of pharmacological therapies, short term and long term MCS could provide opportunities to improve survival, but they also increase the complexity of clinical care. For this reason a multidisciplinary shock team approach is paramount for early symptom detection, to guide initial haemodynamic therapy and for the right choice of MCS device at the right time.

Temporary surgical ventricular assist device for treatment of acute myocardial infarction and refractory cardiogenic shock in the percutaneous device era

BACKGROUND

Acute myocardial infarction with refractory cardiogenic shock (AMI-RCS) is associated with poor outcomes. Several percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices exist; however, limitations exist regarding long-term use. Herein, we describe our experience with the temporary surgical CentriMag VAD.

METHODS

We reviewed 74 patients with AMI-RCS who underwent CentriMag VAD insertion as bridge-to-decision device from 2007 to 2020. Patients were divided into groups based on introduction of the "shock team" model: Era 1 (2007-2014, n = 51) and Era 2 (2015-2020, n = 23).

RESULTS

Era 2 had higher proportion of patients with INTERMACS Profile I. The use of percutaneous MCS as bridge to VAD and the use of minimally invasive VAD were higher in Era 2. There were fewer postoperative bleeding events in Era 2 (80% vs 61%, p = .07). Thirty-day mortality was 23% and 1-year survival was 55%, which were no differences between eras. Destinations after CentriMag VAD included myocardial recovery (39%), durable LVAD (27%), and transplantation (5%).

CONCLUSION

CentriMag VAD device represents a viable bridge-to-decision device with acceptable short- and long-term outcomes for patients with AMI-RCS. Stable outcomes in a progressively sicker population may be related to changes in practice patterns as well as introduction of the "shock team" concept.

Currently Available Options for Mechanical Circulatory Support for the Management of Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex condition with a high risk for morbidity and mortality. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices were developed to support patients with CS in cases refractory to treatment with vasoactive medications. Current devices include intra-aortic balloon pumps, intravascular microaxial pumps, percutaneous LVAD, percutaneous RVAD, and VA ECMO. Data from limited observational studies and clinical trials show a clear difference in the level of hemodynamic support offered by each device. However, at this point, there are insufficient clinical trial data to guide MCS selection and, until ongoing clinical trials are completed, use of the right device for the right patient depends largely on clinical judgment.

Preemptive renal replacement therapy in post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock patients: a historically controlled cohort study

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to evaluate whether the preemptive renal replacement therapy (RRT) might improve outcomes in post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS) patients.

METHODS

In Period A (September 2014-April 2016), patients with PCCS received RRT, depending on conventional indications or bedside attendings. In Period B (May 2016-November 2017), the preemptive RRT strategy was implemented in all PCCS patients in our intensive care unit. The goal-directed RRT was applied for the RRT patients. The hospital mortality and renal recovery were compared between the two periods.

RESULTS

A total of 155 patients (76 patients in Period A and 79 patients in Period B) were ultimately enrolled in this study. There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics and intraoperative and postoperative parameters between the two groups. The duration between surgery and RRT initiation was significantly shorter in Period B than in Period A [23 (17, 66) vs. 47 (20, 127) h, P<0.01]. The hospital mortality in Period B was significantly lower than that in Period A (38.0% vs. 59.2%, P<0.01). There were fewer patients with no renal recovery in Period B (4.1% vs. 19.4%, P=0.026). Patients in Period B displayed a significantly shorter time to completely renal recovery (12±15 vs. 25±15 d, P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Among PCCS patients, preemptive RRT compared with conventional initiation of RRT reduced mortality in hospital and also led to faster and more frequent recovery of renal function. Our preliminary study supposed that preemptive initiation of RRT might be an effective approach to PCCS with acute kidney injury (AKI).

Cardiogenic shock during heart failure hospitalizations: Age-, sex-, and race-stratified trends in incidence and outcomes

The objectives were to study the overall and age-, sex-, and race-stratified incidence of cardiogenic shock (CS) during heart failure hospitalizations (HFHs) not complicated by acute coronary syndromes (ACS), utilization of short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and in-hospital mortality with non-ACS-related CS, and respective temporal trends. Data are lacking regarding the epidemiology of non-ACS-related CS during HFHs.

METHODS

Retrospective observational analysis of the National Inpatient Sample 2005-2014 to identify all HFHs in adult patients without concomitant ACS.

RESULTS

Of 8,333,752 HFHs, incidence rate of non-ACS-related CS was 8.7 per thousand HFHs (N = 72,668), a 4-fold increase from 4.1 to 15.6 per thousand HFHs between 2005 and 2014 (P_trend < .001). Among those with non-ACS-related CS, utilization rates of intra-aortic balloon pump, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and temporary ventricular assist devices were 12.8%, 1.4%, and 2.5%, respectively. Respective 2005 to 2014 trends were 14.2% to 10.7%, 0.6% to 1.8%, and 0.8% to 2.7% (P_trend for all, <.001). In-hospital mortality rate was 27.1%, with a substantial decrease from 42.4% in 2005 to 23.3% in 2014 (P_trend < .001). These temporal trends were largely consistent across age, sex, and race subgroups.

CONCLUSION

During HFHs in the United States, non-ACS-related CS occurred infrequently but was associated with substantial mortality. Non-ACS-related CS incidence and certain MCS utilization rates increased, and in-hospital mortality rate decreased between 2005 and 2014. These trends were generally homogenous across the age, sex, and race groups. The observed trends in incidence and mortality may be a reflection of increased identification of CS during HFHs, although further study is needed to assess whether temporal changes in care may have influenced outcomes.