Search

Aims: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for a significant proportion of CS cases. Whether patients with de novo HF and those with acute-on-chronic HF in CS differ in clinical characteristics and outcome remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate differences in clinical presentation and mortality between patients with de novo and acute-on-chronic HF-CS., Methods and Results: In this international observational study, patients with HF-CS from 16 tertiary care centres in five countries were enrolled between 2010 and 2021. To investigate differences in clinical presentation and 30-day mortality, adjusted logistic/Cox regression models were fitted. Patients (n = 1030) with HF-CS were analysed, of whom 486 (47.2%) presented with de novo HF-CS and 544 (52.8%) with acute-on-chronic HF-CS. Traditional markers of CS severity (e.g. blood pressure, heart rate and lactate) as well as use of treatments were comparable between groups. However, patients with acute-on-chronic HF-CS were more likely to have a higher CS severity and also a higher mortality risk, after adjusting for relevant confounders (de novo HF 45.5%, acute-on-chronic HF 55.9%, adjusted hazard ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.72, p = 0.005)., Conclusion: In this large HF-CS cohort, acute-on-chronic HF-CS was associated with more severe CS and higher mortality risk compared to de novo HF-CS, although traditional markers of CS severity and use of treatments were comparable. These findings highlight the vast heterogeneity of patients with HF-CS, emphasize that HF chronicity is a relevant disease modifier in CS, and indicate that future clinical trials should account for this., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Despite its high incidence and mortality risk, there is no evidence-based treatment for non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock (CS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for non-ischaemic CS treatment., Methods and Results: In this multicentre, international, retrospective study, data from 890 patients with non-ischaemic CS, defined as CS due to severe de-novo or acute-on-chronic heart failure with no need for urgent revascularization, treated with or without active MCS, were collected. The association between active MCS use and the primary endpoint of 30-day mortality was assessed in a 1:1 propensity-matched cohort. MCS was used in 386 (43%) patients. Patients treated with MCS presented with more severe CS (37% vs. 23% deteriorating CS, 30% vs. 25% in extremis CS) and had a lower left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline (21% vs. 25%). After matching, 267 patients treated with MCS were compared with 267 patients treated without MCS. In the matched cohort, MCS use was associated with a lower 30-day mortality (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.59-0.97). This finding was consistent through all tested subgroups except when CS severity was considered, indicating risk reduction especially in patients with deteriorating CS. However, complications occurred more frequently in patients with MCS; e.g. severe bleeding (16.5% vs. 6.4%) and access-site related ischaemia (6.7% vs. 0%)., Conclusion: In patients with non-ischaemic CS, MCS use was associated with lower 30-day mortality as compared to medical therapy only, but also with more complications. Randomized trials are needed to validate these findings., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: It is currently unclear if active left ventricular (LV) unloading should be used as a primary treatment strategy or as a bailout in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) treated with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO)., Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the association between timing of active LV unloading and implantation of VA-ECMO with outcomes of patients with CS., Methods: Data from 421 patients with CS treated with VA-ECMO and active LV unloading at 18 tertiary care centers in 4 countries were analyzed. Patients were stratified by timing of device implantation in early vs delayed active LV unloading (defined by implantation before up to 2 hours after VA-ECMO). Adjusted Cox and logistic regression models were fitted to evaluate the association between early active LV unloading and 30-day mortality as well as successful weaning from ventilation., Results: Overall, 310 (73.6%) patients with CS were treated with early active LV unloading. Early active LV unloading was associated with a lower 30-day mortality risk (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.46-0.88) and a higher likelihood of successful weaning from ventilation (OR: 2.17; 95% CI: 1.19-3.93) but not with more complications. Importantly, the relative mortality risk increased and the likelihood of successful weaning from ventilation decreased almost proportionally with the time interval between VA-ECMO implantation and (delayed) initiation of active LV unloading., Conclusions: This exploratory study lends support to the use of early active LV unloading in CS patients on VA-ECMO, although the findings need to be validated in a randomized controlled trial., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Drs Schrage and Westermann were funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, and Dr Schrage is also funded by the Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung. This study was funded by an unrestricted research grant from Abiomed. However, Abiomed was not involved in the design of the study, the collection and analysis of the data, the writing of the manuscript, or the decision to publish. Dr Schrage has received speaker fees from Abiomed and AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work. Dr Blankenberg has received grants and personal fees from Abbott Diagnostics, Bayer, Siemens, and Thermo Fisher; grants from Singulex; and personal fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, AMGEN, Medtronic, Pfizer, Roche, Siemens Diagnostics, and Novartis, outside of the submitted work. Dr Eckner has received speaker fees from Abiomed, Bayer, and Daiichi Sankyo, outside of the submitted work. Dr Kirchhof has received research support for basic, translational, and clinical research projects from the European Union, British Heart Foundation, Leducq Foundation, Medical Research Council (United Kingdom), and German Center for Cardiovascular Research; has received research support from several drug and device companies active in atrial fibrillation; has received honoraria from several such companies in the past but not in the last 3 years; and is listed as inventor on 2 patents held by the University of Birmingham (Atrial Fibrillation Therapy WO 2015140571, Markers for Atrial Fibrillation WO 2016012783; unrelated to the submitted work). Dr Mangner has received personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Biotronik, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bayer, Abbott, Abiomed, and Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work. Dr Mierke has received speaker fees from Abiomed, outside the submitted work. Dr Morrow has served as a member of the TIMI Study Group, which has received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Arca Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron, Roche, Siemens, The Medicines Company, and Zora Biosciences; and received consulting fees from Arca Biopharma, Bayer Pharma, InCarda, Inflammatix, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Pappalardo has served as a consultant for Abiomed. Dr Westermann has received speaker fees from Abiomed, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Medtronic, outside of the submitted work. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used to treat cardiogenic shock. However, VA-ECMO might hamper myocardial recovery. The Impella unloads the left ventricle. This study aimed to evaluate whether left ventricular unloading in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO was associated with lower mortality., Methods: Data from 686 consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO with or without left ventricular unloading using an Impella at 16 tertiary care centers in 4 countries were collected. The association between left ventricular unloading and 30-day mortality was assessed by Cox regression models in a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort., Results: Left ventricular unloading was used in 337 of the 686 patients (49%). After matching, 255 patients with left ventricular unloading were compared with 255 patients without left ventricular unloading. In the matched cohort, left ventricular unloading was associated with lower 30-day mortality (hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.63-0.98]; P =0.03) without differences in various subgroups. Complications occurred more frequently in patients with left ventricular unloading: severe bleeding in 98 (38.4%) versus 45 (17.9%), access site-related ischemia in 55 (21.6%) versus 31 (12.3%), abdominal compartment in 23 (9.4%) versus 9 (3.7%), and renal replacement therapy in 148 (58.5%) versus 99 (39.1%)., Conclusions: In this international, multicenter cohort study, left ventricular unloading was associated with lower mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO, despite higher complication rates. These findings support use of left ventricular unloading in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO and call for further validation, ideally in a randomized, controlled trial.

Aims: From the various mechanical cardiac assist devices and indications available, the use of the percutaneous intraventricular Impella CP pump is usually restricted to acute ischaemic shock or prophylactic indications in high-risk interventions. In the present study, we investigated clinical usefulness of the Impella CP device in patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock as compared with acute ischaemia., Methods and Results: In this retrospective single-centre analysis, patients who received an Impella CP at the University Hospital Würzburg between 2013 and 2017 due to non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock were age-matched 2:1 with patients receiving the device due to ischaemic cardiogenic shock. Inclusion criteria were therapy refractory haemodynamic instability with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction and serum lactate >2.0 mmol/L at implantation. Basic clinical data, indications for mechanical ventricular support, and outcome were obtained in all patients with non-ischaemic as well as ischaemic shock and compared between both groups. Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation or median (quartiles). Categorical variables are presented as count and per cent. Twenty-five patients had cardiogenic shock due to non-ischaemic reasons and were compared with 50 patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction. Resuscitation rates before implantation of Impella CP were high (32 vs. 42%; P = 0.402). At implantation, patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock had lower levels of high-sensitive troponin T (110.65 [57.87-322.1] vs. 1610 [450.8-3861.5] pg/mL; P = 0.001) and lactate dehydrogenase (377 [279-608] vs. 616 [371.3-1109] U/L; P = 0.007), while age (59 ± 16 vs. 61.7 ± 11; P = 0.401), glomerular filtration rate (43.5 [33.2-59.7] vs. 48 [35.75-69] mL/min; P = 0.290), C-reactive protein (5.17 [3.27-10.26] vs. 10.97 [3.23-17.2] mg/dL; P = 0.195), catecholamine index (30.6 [10.6-116.9] vs. 47.6 [11.7-90] μg/kg/min; P = 0.663), and serum lactate (2.6 [2.2-5.8] vs. 2.9 [1.3-6.6] mmol/L; P = 0.424) were comparable between both groups. There was a trend for longer duration of Impella support in the non-ischaemic groups (5 [2-7.5] vs. 3 [2-5.25] days, P = 0.211). Rates of haemodialysis (52 vs. 47%; P = 0.680) and transition to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (13.6 vs. 22.2%; P = 0.521) were comparable. No significant difference was found regarding both 30 day survival (48 vs. 30%; P = 0.126) and in-hospital mortality (66.7 vs. 74%; P = 0.512), although there was a trend for better survival in the non-ischaemic group., Conclusions: These data suggest that temporary use of the Impella CP device might be a useful therapeutic option for bridge to recovery not only in ischaemic but also in non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock., (© 2019 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Accurate preoperative assessment of the aortic annulus dimension is crucial for successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). In this study we examined the accuracy of a novel method using two-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (2D-TEE) for measurement of the aortic annulus., Methods: We evaluated the theoretical impact of the measurement of the annulus diameter and area using the circumcircle of a triangle method on the decision to perform the procedure and choice of the prosthesis size., Results: Sixty-three consecutive patients were scheduled for TAVI. Mean age was 82 ± 4 years, and 25 patients (55.6 %) were female. Mean aortic annulus diameter was 20.3 ± 2.2 mm assessed by TEE on the mid-esophageal long-axis view and 23.9 ± 2.3 mm using CT (p < 0.001). There was a tendency for the TEE derived areas using the new method to be higher (p < 0.001). The TEE measurements were on average 42.33 mm(2) higher than the CT measurements without an evidence of a systematic over- or under-sizing (p = 1.00). Agreement between TEE and CT chosen valve sizes was good overall (kappa = 0.67 and weighted kappa = 0.71). For patients who turned out to have no AR, the two methods agreed in 84.6 % of patients., Conclusions: CT remanis the gold standard in sizing of the aortic valve annulus. Nevertheless, sizing of the aortic valve annulus using TEE derived area may be helpful. The impact of integration of this method in the algorithm of aortic annulus sizing on the outcome of patients undergoing TAVI should be examined in future studies.

Background: Accurate preoperative assessment of the aortic annulus dimension is crucial for successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). In this study we validated a new method using two-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (2D-TEE) for measurement of the aortic annulus prior to TAVI., Methods: We analysed 124 patients who underwent successful TAVI using a self-expandable prosthesis, divided equally into two groups; in the study group we used the cross sectional short axis 2D-TEE for measurement of the aortic annulus and in the control group we used the long axis 2D-TEE., Results: Both groups were comparable regarding the clinical parameters. On the other hand, patients in the study group had less left ventricular ejection fraction (38.9 % versus 45.6 %, p = 0.01). The aortic valve annulus was, although not statistically significant, smaller in the study group (21.58 versus 23.28 mm, p = 0.25). Post procedural quantification of the aortic regurgitation revealed that only one patient in both groups had severe aortic regurgitation (AR), in this patient the valve was implanted deep. The incidence of significant AR was higher in the control group (29.0 % versus 12.9 %, p = 0.027)., Conclusions: Sizing of the aortic valve annulus using cross-sectional 2D-TEE offers a safe and plausible method for patients undergoing TAVI using the self-expandable prosthesis and is significantly superior to using long axis 2D-TEE.