Complete Revascularisation in Impella-Supported Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock Patients Is Associated With Improved Mortality

Clinical significance of residual ischaemia in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock undergoing venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

AIMS

Although culprit-only revascularization during the index procedure has been recommended in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS), the reduction in residual ischaemia is also emphasized to improve clinical outcomes. However, few data are available about the significance of residual ischaemia in patients undergoing mechanical circulatory supports. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of residual ischaemia on clinical outcomes in patients with AMI undergoing venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with AMI with multivessel disease who underwent VA-ECMO due to refractory CS were pooled from the RESCUE and SMC-ECMO registries. The included patients were classified into three groups according to residual ischaemia evaluated using the residual Synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score (rSS): rSS = 0, 0 < rSS ≤ 8, and rSS > 8. The primary outcome was 1-year all-cause death. A total of 408 patients were classified into the rSS = 0 (n = 100, 24.5%), 0 < rSS ≤ 8 (n = 136, 33.3%), and rSS > 8 (n = 172, 42.2%) groups. The cumulative incidence of the primary outcome differed significantly according to rSS (33.9 vs. 55.4 vs. 66.1% for rSS = 0, 0 < rSS ≤ 8, and rSS > 8, respectively, overall P < 0.001). In a multivariable model, rSS was independently associated with the risk of 1-year all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.05, P = 0.003). Conversely, the baseline SYNTAX score was not associated with the risk of the primary outcome. Furthermore, when patients were stratified by rSS, the primary outcome did not differ significantly between the high and low delta SYNTAX score groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with AMI with refractory CS who underwent VA-ECMO, residual ischaemia was associated with an increased risk of 1-year mortality. Future studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of revascularization strategies to minimize residual ischaemia in patients with CS supported with VA-ECMO.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

REtrospective and Prospective Observational Study to Investigate Clinical oUtcomes and Efficacy of Left Ventricular Assist Device for Korean Patients With Cardiogenic Shock (RESCUE), NCT02985008.

Treatment and Care of Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction-What Challenges Remain after Three Decades of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention?

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) has revolutionized the prognosis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and is the gold standard treatment. As a result of its success, the number of pPCI centres has expanded worldwide. Despite decades of advancements, clinical outcomes in STEMI patients have plateaued. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock remain a major cause of high in-hospital mortality, whilst the growing burden of heart failure in long-term STEMI survivors presents a growing problem. Many elements aiming to optimize STEMI treatment are still subject to debate or lack sufficient evidence. This review provides an overview of the most contentious current issues in pPCI in STEMI patients, with an emphasis on unresolved questions and persistent challenges.

Acute coronary syndromes and multivessel coronary artery disease

Patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and multivessel coronary artery disease are frequently encountered during clinical practice and those patients are at higher risk of subsequent acute cardiovascular events. In patients presenting with both ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, complete revascularization is associated with decreased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. Nevertheless, the optimal timing of the intervention and treatment modality are still in discussions. Furthermore, non-culprit lesions assessment based on stenosis severity, either on visual or on functional evaluation, may not provide information about vulnerable plaques prone to thrombosis. Therefore, insights from intracoronary imaging could further identify high-risk plaque and patients at higher risk of future adverse events. This article aims to provide an overview of current guideline recommendations, envisioning future perspectives for the treatment of patients with ACS and multivessel disease.

Impella Versus VA-ECMO for Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Comprehensive Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analyses

Impella and VA-ECMO are two possible therapeutic courses for the treatment of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). The study aims to perform a systematic literature review and meta-analyses of a comprehensive set of clinical and socio-economic outcomes observed when using Impella or VA-ECMO with patients under CS. A systematic literature review was performed in Medline, and Web of Science databases on 21 February 2022. Nonoverlapping studies with adult patients supported for CS with Impella or VA-ECMO were searched. Study designs including RCTs, observational studies, and economic evaluations were considered. Data on patient characteristics, type of support, and outcomes were extracted. Additionally, meta-analyses were performed on the most relevant and recurring outcomes, and results shown using forest plots. A total of 102 studies were included, 57% on Impella, 43% on VA-ECMO. The most common outcomes investigated were mortality/survival, duration of support, and bleeding. Ischemic stroke was lower in patients treated with Impella compared to the VA-ECMO population, with statistically significant difference. Socio-economic outcomes including quality of life or resource use were not reported in any study. The study highlighted areas where further data collection is needed to clarify the value of complex, new technologies in the treatment of CS that will enable comparative assessments focusing both on the health impact on patient outcomes and on the financial burden for government budgets. Future studies need to fill the gap to comply with recent regulatory updates at the European and national levels.

Single center experience and early outcomes of Impella 5.5

Background

Acute decompensated heart failure (HF) and cardiogenic shock (CS) frequently are refractory to conservative treatment and require mechanical circulatory support (MCS). We report our early clinical experience and evaluate patient outcomes with the newer generation surgical Impella 5.5.

Methods

Seventy patients that underwent Impella 5.5 implantation between October 2019 and December 2021 at a single center were enrolled in this study. Pre-operative characteristics, peri-operative clinical course information, and post-operative outcomes were retrospectively collected.

Results

Fifty-seven (81%) patients survived to discharge, and 51 (76%) patients survived at the time of the first 30 days post-discharge visit. Thirty-one patients (44%) received Impella support for a bridge to advanced surgical heart failure therapy (transplant or durable left ventricular assist device [LVAD]), 27 (39%) cases were used for a bridge to recovery/decision and 12 (17.1%) cases was used for planned perioperative support for high-risk cardiac surgery procedure.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that Impella 5.5 provides favorable survival in the management of HF and CS, particularly used for a bridge to heart transplant or LVAD. Early extubation and mobilization with high flow circulatory support allowed effective tailoring of MCS approaches from peri-operative support for high-risk cardiac surgery, bridge to recovery, and to advanced surgical heart failure therapy.

Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device in Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Microaxial left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are increasingly used to support patients with cardiogenic shock; however, outcome results are limited to single-center studies, registry data and select reviews. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching three databases for relevant studies reporting on microaxial LVAD use in adults with cardiogenic shock. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis (DerSimonian and Laird) based on short-term mortality (primary outcome), long-term mortality and device complications (secondary outcomes). We assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the Joanna Briggs Institute and the GRADE approaches, respectively. A total of 63 observational studies (3896 patients), 6 propensity-score matched (PSM) studies and 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included (384 patients). The pooled short-term mortality from observational studies was 46.5% (95%-CI: 42.7–50.3%); this was 48.9% (95%-CI: 43.8–54.1%) amongst PSM studies and RCTs. The pooled mortality at 90 days, 6 months and 1 year was 41.8%, 51.1% and 54.3%, respectively. Hemolysis and access-site bleeding were the most common complications, each with a pooled incidence of around 20%. The reported mortality rate of microaxial LVADs was not significantly lower than extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP). Current evidence does not suggest any mortality benefit when compared to ECMO or IABP.

When to Achieve Complete Revascularization in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock

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