Search

Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) exhibits high (~50%) in-hospital mortality. The recently published Extracorporeal life Support in Cardiogenic Shock (ECLS-SHOCK) trial demonstrated the neutral effects of the use of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) on all-cause death, as well as on all secondary outcomes in subjects presenting with myocardial-infarction (MI)-related CS. Here, we compared ECLS-SHOCK eligibility criteria with a real-world cohort of CS patients. Methods and Results: ECLS-SHOCK eligibility criteria were applied to a prospective single-center CS registry (the PREPARE CS registry) consisting of 557 patients who were consecutively admitted to the catheterization laboratory (cath lab) of the Medical University of Graz, Austria, due to CS (SCAI C-E). Overall use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in this cohort was 19%. Sixty-nine percent of the entire cohort had MI-related CS, 38% of whom would have met ECLS-SHOCK eligibility criteria, thus representing only 27% of the PREPARE CS registry. Exclusion from the ECLS-SHOCK trial was based on patients with initial lactate values below 3 mmol/L (n = 168; 43.6%), aged over 80 years (n = 65; 16.9%), and with a duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) exceeding 45 min (n = 22; 5.7%). The 30-day mortality of patients of the PREPARE CS registry who met the ECLS-SHOCK eligibility criteria was 57.0%, compared to 48.4% of patients in the ECLS-SHOCK trial. The patients' baseline characteristics, however, differed considerably with respect to type of infarction, age, and gender. Conclusions: In a real-world cohort of patients with MI-related CS, only 38% of patients met the eligibility criteria of the ECLS-SHOCK trial. Thus, the impact of the use of VA-ECMO on outcome parameters in MI-related CS, as observed in the ECLS-SHOCK trial, may differ in a more heterogeneous real-world CS population of the PREPARE CS registry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Complete real-world data on the indications and outcomes of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) outside of clinical trials are rare. In this study, we stratified patients undergoing LAAC by indication groups. Methods: This analysis of the national multicentre Austrian LAAC Registry comprised all patients that underwent LAAC up until 2018 at the currently active centres in Austria. The baseline characteristics, procedural details and outcomes between the following indication groups were compared: bleeding as an indication for LAAC ("bleeding" group) vs. thromboembolism despite oral anticoagulation (OAC; "thromboembolism" group) vs. an intolerance to OAC for reasons other than the above ("other" group). Results: The analysis included 186 patients, with 59.7% in the "bleeding" group, 8.1% in the "thromboembolism" group and 32.2% in the "other" group. The CHADS2 score was the highest in the "thromboembolism" group and the HAS-BLED score was the highest in the "bleeding" group. The procedural outcomes were similar between groups (implantation success, 97.3%), with major complications occurring in 7.0% of patients. One-year survival free from stroke, bleeding or LAAC-associated hospitalisation was 83.9%, 90.0% and 81.4% in the "bleeding", "thromboembolism" and "other" groups, respectively (p = 0.891). Conclusions: In routine clinical practice, LAAC was used in a heterogeneous patient population with atrial fibrillation (AF) and contraindication, inefficacy or intolerance to OAC. The long-term outcome was favourable in all groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]