Search

Aims: Despite increased temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) utilization for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), data regarding efficacy and optimal timing for tMCS support are limited. This study aimed to describe outcomes based on tMCS timing in AMI-CS and to identify predictors of 30-day mortality and readmission., Methods and Results: Patients with AMI-CS identified in the National Readmissions Database were grouped according to the use of tMCS and early (<24 h) vs. delayed (≥24 h) tMCS. The correlation between tMCS timing and inpatient outcomes was evaluated using linear regression. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with 30-day mortality and readmission. Of 294 839 patients with AMI-CS, 109 148 patients were supported with tMCS (8067 veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, 33 577 Impella, and 79 161 intra-aortic balloon pump). Of patients requiring tMCS, patients who received early tMCS (n = 79 906) had shorter lengths of stay (7 vs. 15 days, P < 0.001) and lower rates of ischaemic and bleeding complications than those with delayed tMCS (n = 32 241). Patients requiring tMCS had higher in-hospital mortality [odds ratio (95% confidence interval)] [1.7 (1.7-1.8), P < 0.001]. Among patients requiring tMCS, early support was associated with fewer complications, lower mortality [0.90 (0.85-0.94), P < 0.001], and fewer 30-day readmissions [0.91 (0.85-0.97), P = 0.005] compared with patients with delayed tMCS., Conclusion: Among patients receiving tMCS for AMI-CS, early tMCS was associated with fewer complications, shorter lengths of stay, lower hospital costs, and fewer deaths and readmissions at 30 days., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: K.H.: consultant for Abiomed. P.M.E.: consulting for Abbott, Ancora, Daxor, Medtronic. M.B.B.: consulting/speaker Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, Zoll. J.A.C.: consultant for Abbott, Medtronic, BiVACOR, CorWAVE, Endotronix (unpaid), Nuwellis (unpaid), Berlin Heart (DSMB), Procyrion (Stock options). K.A.: consultant and speaking honoraria from Boston Scientific, Teleflex, CSI, LivaNova. Patent: antegrade haemodynamic support. Y.S.: consultant for Abbott diagnostics, Roche Diagnostics, Philips, Zoll. E.S.B.: consulting/speaker honoraria from Abbott Vascular, American Heart Association (associate editor Circulation), Amgen, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Innovations Foundation (Board of Directors), ControlRad, CSI, Ebix, Elsevier, GE Healthcare, InfraRedx, Medtronic, Siemens, and Teleflex; research support from Regeneron and Siemens. Shareholder: MHI Ventures. K.G.B., S.M., A.E., and M.S.M.: nothing to disclose., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

We report a case of a 59-year-old male in post-myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock undergoing left atrial venous arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (LAVA-ECMO) as a bridge to transplantation. The unique feature of this ECMO configuration is use of a single trans-septal cannula to provide biventricular unloading and use of a single arterial access., Competing Interests: Disclosures: M.B.B. is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Cardiovascular System, Chiesi and Zoll. K.A. is a consultant and speaker for Boston Scientific, Teleflex Medical, Abbott Vascular, and CSI. J.C. is a consultant for Medtronic and Abbott. M.H. E. is a clinical proctor for Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. W.W.N. has received grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Abiomed. For the remaining authors, there are no conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © ASAIO 2021.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the differences in cardiogenic shock patient characteristics in trial patients and real-life patients., Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a leading cause of mortality in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, the enrollment of patients into clinical trials is challenging and may not be representative of real-world patients., Methods: We performed a systematic review of studies in patients presenting with AMI-related CS and compared patient characteristics of those enrolled into randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with those in registries., Results: We included 14 RCTs (n = 2,154) and 12 registries (n = 133,617). RCTs included more men (73% vs 67.7%, P < 0.001) compared with registries. Patients enrolled in RCTs had fewer comorbidities, including less hypertension (61.6% vs 65.9%, P < 0.001), dyslipidemia (36.4% vs 53.6%, P < 0.001), a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack (7.1% vs 10.7%, P < 0.001), and prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (5.4% vs 7.5%, P < 0.001). Patients enrolled in RCTs also had lower lactate levels (4.7 ± 2.3 mmol/L vs 5.9 ± 1.9 mmol/L, P < 0.001) and higher mean arterial pressure (73.0 ± 8.8 mm Hg vs 62.5 ± 12.2 mm Hg, P < 0.001). Percutaneous coronary intervention (97.5% vs 58.4%, P < 0.001) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (11.6% vs 3.4%, P < 0.001) were used more often in RCTs. The in-hospital mortality (23.9% vs 38.4%, P < 0.001) and 30-day mortality (39.9% vs 45.9%, P < 0.001) were lower in RCT patients., Conclusions: RCTs in AMI-related CS tend to enroll fewer women and lower-risk patients compared with registries. Patients enrolled in RCTs are more likely to receive aggressive treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and have lower in-hospital and 30-day mortality., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Basir is a consultant/speaker for Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, Procyrion, and Zoll. Dr Alaswad has received honoraria for consulting/speaking from Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, LivaNova, and Teleflex. Dr Brilakis has received honoraria for consulting/speaking from Abbott Vascular, American Heart Association (associate editor Circulation), Amgen, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Innovations Foundation (Board of Directors), ControlRad, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Ebix, Elsevier, GE Healthcare, InfraRedx, Medtronic, Siemens, and Teleflex; has received research support from Regeneron and Siemens; and is a shareholder of MHI Ventures. Dr Napp has received honoraria for lecturing/consulting and has received research support from Cytosorbents; has received honoraria for lecturing from Abbott and Maquet; and has received honoraria for lecturing/proctoring/consulting and research funding from Abiomed. Dr O’Neill is a consultant/speaker for Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Edwards, and Zoll. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Mechanical circulatory support devices are increasingly used for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. These devices provide different levels of univentricular and biventricular support, have different mechanisms of actions, and provide different physiologic effects. Institutions require expert teams to safely implant and manage these devices. This article reviews the mechanism of action, physiologic effects, and data as they relate to the utilization of these devices., Competing Interests: Disclosure M.B. Basir is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, Procyrion and Zoll. A. Lemor and L. Ya’qoub report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Percutaneous ventricular assist devices and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are increasingly used for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) in hospitals throughout the United States., Methods: Using the National Inpatient Sample from October 2015 to December 2017, we identified hospital admissions that underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and non-elective Impella or ECMO placement for AMI-CS using ICD-10 codes. Propensity-score matching was performed to compare both groups for primary and secondary outcomes., Results: We identified 6290 admissions for AMI-CS who underwent PCI and were treated with Impella (n = 5730, 91%) or ECMO (n = 560, 9%) from October 2015 to December 2017. After propensity-match analysis, the ECMO cohort had significantly higher in-hospital mortality (43.3% vs 26.7%, OR: 2.10, p = 0.021). The incidence of acute respiratory failure and vascular complications were significantly lower in the Impella cohort. We observed a shorter duration of hospital stay and lower hospital costs in the Impella cohort compared to those who received ECMO., Conclusions: In AMI-CS, the use of Impella was associated with better clinical outcomes, fewer complications, shorter length of hospital stay and lower hospital cost compared to those undergoing ECMO placement., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr Basir has the following disclosures: Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Chiesi, Cardiovascular Systems, and Zoll. Dr Kapur has the following disclosures: Abbott, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, LivaNova, MD Start, and Precardia. Dr O'Neill has the following disclosures: Abiomed and Abbott. The rest of the authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Despite early reperfusion and coordinated systems of care, cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the number one cause of morbidity and in-hospital mortality following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). CS is a complex clinical syndrome that begins with hemodynamic instability and can progress to multi-organ failure and profound hemo-metabolic compromise. To improve outcomes, a clear understanding of the treatment objectives in CS and developing time-sensitive management strategies aimed at stabilizing hemodynamics and restoring myocardial perfusion are critical. Left ventricular (LV) load has been identified as an independent predictor of heart failure and mortality following AMI. Decades of preclinical and clinical research have identified several effective LV unloading strategies. Recent initiatives from single and multi-center registries and more recently the Door to Unload (DTU)-STEMI pilot study have provided valuable insight to developing a standardized treatment approach to AMI, based on early invasive hemodynamics and tailored circulatory support to unload the LV. To follow is a review of the pathophysiology and prevalence of shock, limitations of current therapies, and the pre-clinical and translational basis for incorporating LV unloading into contemporary AMI and shock care., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

There is limited data on regional differences in patient characteristics, practice patterns, and clinical outcomes in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with cardiogenic shock (CS) in the United States (US). We aimed to identify variations in treatment methods and clinical outcomes in patients with STEMI CS between the 4 US regions. Using the National Inpatient Sample database, we identified adult patients admitted with STEMI associated with CS between 2006 and 2015 using ICD-9-DM codes. Based on the US regions (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West), we divided patients in 4 cohorts and compared baseline patient characteristics, clinical outcomes and procedural outcomes. A total of 186,316 patients with STEMI CS were included; 32,303 (17.3%) were hospitalized in the Northeast, 43,634 (23.4%) in the Midwest, 70,036 (37.8%) in the South, and 40,043 (21.5%) in the West. Although nonstatistically significant, the in-hospital mortality was higher in Northeast region (37.7%), followed by the South (36.6%), West (35.7%), and Midwest (35.2%). Rates of percutaneous coronary intervention were higher in the Midwest (68.5%) and lower in the Northeast (56%). The use of percutaneous ventricular assist device and ECMO was higher in the Northeast (3.3% and 2.2%) and lower in the West (2.1% and 0.4%). The median length of stay was similar among all 4 cohorts (6 days) but median hospital costs were higher in the West ($36, 614) and lower in the South ($28,795). In conclusion, there are significant geographic variations in practice patterns, healthcare cost, and in-hospital outcomes in patients with STEMI complicated by CS between 4 US regions., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pulseless ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) is the initial rhythm in a third of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device use remains poorly understood in this population., Methods: We conducted an observational analysis of temporal trends in the utilization of MCS in VT/VF IHCA between January 2008 and December 2014 utilizing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Using multivariable analysis, we assessed factors associated with MCS use and survival to discharge., Results: Among 151,628 hospitalizations with VT/VF IHCA, 14,981 (9.9%) received MCS. Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was the most commonly used MCS (9.1%). From 2008 to 2014, there was significant increase in the utilization of MCS (8.7-11%; p trend  < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, there was 12-fold increase and three-fold increase in the utilization of PVAD and ECMO respectively; however, there was no significant change in the use of IABP. Over the seven-year sample period, there was significant increase in the overall survival to hospital discharge (35.4-43.5%; p trend  < 0.0001). Survival to hospital discharge increased in both MCS and non-MCS groups., Conclusion: There was significant increase in utilization of MCS after VT/VF IHCA during the study period. IABP was the most commonly utilized MCS. The survival to hospital discharge increased in the overall study population including both MCS and non-MCS groups. Future studies are needed to identify patient population most likely to benefit from the use of MCS after VT/VF IHCA., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: The 'Detroit Cardiogenic Shock Initiative' is a single-arm, multicenter study to assess the feasibility of early mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients who present with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention., Methods: Between July 2016 and February 2017, 4 metro Detroit sites participated in the study. The centers agreed to treat patients with AMICS using a mutually agreed-upon protocol emphasizing invasive hemodynamic monitoring and rapid initiation of MCS. Inclusion and exclusion criteria mimicked those from the 'SHOCK' trial with an additional exclusion criteria being use of intra-aortic balloon pump counter pulsation prior to MCS., Results: A total of 41 consecutive patients were included. Patients had an average age of 65 ± 14 years, 71% were male and 59% of patients were admitted to the hospital in cardiogenic shock. Prior to receiving MCS, 93% of patients were on vasopressors or inotropes, 15% of patients had a witnessed out of hospital cardiac arrest, 27% of patients had an in-hospital cardiac arrest, and 17% were under active cardiopulmonary resuscitation while MCS was being implanted. In accordance to the protocol recommendation, 66% of patients had a MCS device inserted prior to PCI. Right heart catheterization and hemodynamic monitoring was performed in 83% of patients. Door to support times averaged 83 ± 58 minutes and 71% of patients were able to reduce the levels of inotropes and vasopressors within the first 24-hours of their index procedure. Pre-procedure cardiac power output (CPO) was 0.57 W and post-procedure CPO was 0.95 W, a 67% increase (p < 0.001). Survival to explant for the entire cohort was 85% a significant improvement from institutional historical controls (85% vs 51% p < 0.001) and survival to discharge was 76%., Conclusion: Centers who adopted a regional shock protocol emphasizing the delivery of early MCS with invasive hemodynamic monitoring can achieve rapid door to support times and can improve survival in patients who present with AMICS. Larger national studies will be needed to further validate this pilot feasibility study., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)