Initial experience with a continuous mechanical aspiration system for thrombus removal before percutaneous coronary intervention.

Objectives: Here we investigate the safety and efficacy of a continuous mechanical aspiration system when used before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Background: Historically, trials of routine manual aspiration thrombectomy in ACS patients have reported mixed results. This may be due to the technical limitations of manual aspiration, which suffers from decreasing vacuum power as aspiration is performed. Methods: This is a retrospective case series of all patients treated with continuous mechanical aspiration (Indigo CAT RX Aspiration System; Penumbra Inc.) before PCI between August 2017 and July 2020 at five centers in the United States. Data regarding angiographic assessments, procedure, and safety were examined. Results: Seventy-two patients (mean age 60 ± 12.5 years, 34.7% female) with ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) (80.6%) or Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI) (19.4%) were included. Target vessels were the right coronary (43.1%), left anterior descending (33.3%), and left circumflex (23.6%). Preprocedure, 94.4% had a high thrombus burden (thrombolysis in myocardial infarction [TIMI] thrombus grade ≥ 3). Median aspiration time was 35 s and median access-to-reperfusion time was 10 min. After CAT RX alone, 86.1% had complete perfusion (TIMI flow grade 3). After the procedure, 94.4% had TIMI thrombus grade \u3c3% and 97.2% had TIMI flow grade 3. There were no cases of ischemic stroke. Cardiovascular mortality at 30 days was 1.4%. Conclusions: In our initial experience, aspirating thrombus from ACS patients using the Indigo CAT RX Aspiration System before PCI was safe and effective for reducing thrombus burden and restoring flow

Multivessel Versus Culprit-Vessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare outcomes of patients enrolled in the NCSI (National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative) trial who were treated using a revascularization strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of multivessel PCI (MV-PCI) versus culprit-vessel PCI (CV-PCI). BACKGROUND: In patients with multivessel disease who present with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS), intervening on the nonculprit vessel is controversial. There are conflicting published reports and lack of evidence, particularly in patients treated with early mechanical circulatory support (MCS). METHODS: From July 2016 to December 2019, patients who presented with AMICS to 57 participating hospitals were included in this analysis. All patients were treated using a standard shock protocol emphasizing early MCS, revascularization, and invasive hemodynamic monitoring. Patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) were analyzed according to whether CV-PCI or MV-PCI was undertaken during the index procedure. RESULTS: Of 198 patients with MVCAD, 126 underwent MV-PCI (64%) and 72 underwent CV-PCI (36%). Demographics between the cohorts were similar with respect to age, sex, history of diabetes, prior PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting, and prior history of myocardial infarction. Patients who underwent MV-PCI had a trend toward more severe impairment of cardiac output and worse lactate clearance on presentation, and cardiac performance was significantly worse at 12 h. However, 24 h from PCI, the hemometabolic derangements were similar. Survival and rates of acute kidney injury were not significantly different between groups (69.8% MV-PCI vs. 65.3% CV-PCI; p = 0.51; and 29.9% vs. 34.2%; p = 0.64, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with MVCAD presenting with AMICS treated with early MCS, revascularization of nonculprit lesions was associated with similar hospital survival and acute kidney injury when compared with culprit-only PCI. Selective nonculprit PCI can be safety performed in AMICS in patients supported with mechanical circulatory support

Multivessel Versus Culprit-Vessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare outcomes of patients enrolled in the NCSI (National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative) trial who were treated using a revascularization strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of multivessel PCI (MV-PCI) versus culprit-vessel PCI (CV-PCI). BACKGROUND: In patients with multivessel disease who present with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS), intervening on the nonculprit vessel is controversial. There are conflicting published reports and lack of evidence, particularly in patients treated with early mechanical circulatory support (MCS). METHODS: From July 2016 to December 2019, patients who presented with AMICS to 57 participating hospitals were included in this analysis. All patients were treated using a standard shock protocol emphasizing early MCS, revascularization, and invasive hemodynamic monitoring. Patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) were analyzed according to whether CV-PCI or MV-PCI was undertaken during the index procedure. RESULTS: Of 198 patients with MVCAD, 126 underwent MV-PCI (64%) and 72 underwent CV-PCI (36%). Demographics between the cohorts were similar with respect to age, sex, history of diabetes, prior PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting, and prior history of myocardial infarction. Patients who underwent MV-PCI had a trend toward more severe impairment of cardiac output and worse lactate clearance on presentation, and cardiac performance was significantly worse at 12 h. However, 24 h from PCI, the hemometabolic derangements were similar. Survival and rates of acute kidney injury were not significantly different between groups (69.8% MV-PCI vs. 65.3% CV-PCI; p = 0.51; and 29.9% vs. 34.2%; p = 0.64, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with MVCAD presenting with AMICS treated with early MCS, revascularization of nonculprit lesions was associated with similar hospital survival and acute kidney injury when compared with culprit-only PCI. Selective nonculprit PCI can be safety performed in AMICS in patients supported with mechanical circulatory support

Early Utilization of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: The National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative

Background Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI‐CS) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices increase systemic blood pressure and end organ perfusion while reducing cardiac filling pressures. Methods and Results The National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCT03677180) is a single‐arm, multicenter study. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of utilizing early MCS with Impella in patients presenting with AMI‐CS. The primary end point was in‐hospital mortality. A total of 406 patients were enrolled at 80 sites between 2016 and 2020. Average age was 64±12 years, 24% were female, 17% had a witnessed out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest, 27% had in‐hospital cardiac arrest, and 9% were under active cardiopulmonary resuscitation during MCS implantation. Patients presented with a mean systolic blood pressure of 77.2±19.2 mm Hg, 85% of patients were on vasopressors or inotropes, mean lactate was 4.8±3.9 mmol/L and cardiac power output was 0.67±0.29 watts. At 24 hours, mean systolic blood pressure improved to 103.9±17.8 mm Hg, lactate to 2.7±2.8 mmol/L, and cardiac power output to 1.0±1.3 watts. Procedural survival, survival to discharge, survival to 30 days, and survival to 1 year were 99%, 71%, 68%, and 53%, respectively. Conclusions Early use of MCS in AMI‐CS is feasible across varying health care settings and resulted in improvements to early hemodynamics and perfusion. Survival rates to hospital discharge were high. Given the encouraging results from our analysis, randomized clinical trials are warranted to assess the role of utilizing early MCS, using a standardized, multidisciplinary approach

Improved Outcomes Associated with the use of Shock Protocols: Updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative is a single-arm, prospective, multicenter study to assess outcomes associated with early mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: Between July 2016 and February 2019, 35 sites participated and enrolled into the study. All centers agreed to treat patients with AMICS using a standard protocol emphasizing invasive hemodynamic monitoring and rapid initiation of MCS. Inclusion and exclusion criteria mimicked those of the SHOCK trial with an additional exclusion criteria of intra-aortic balloon pump counter-pulsation prior to MCS. RESULTS: A total of 171 consecutive patients were enrolled. Patients had an average age of 63 years, 77% were male, and 68% were admitted with AMICS. About 83% of patients were on vasopressors or inotropes, 20% had a witnessed out of hospital cardiac arrest, 29% had in-hospital cardiac arrest, and 10% were under active cardiopulmonary resuscitation during MCS implantation. In accordance with the protocol, 74% of patients had MCS implanted prior to PCI. Right heart catheterization was performed in 92%. About 78% of patients presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction with average door to support times of 85 ± 63 min and door to balloon times of 87 ± 58 min. Survival to discharge was 72%. Creatinine ≥2, lactate \u3e4, cardiac power output (CPO) CONCLUSION: In contemporary practice, use of a shock protocol emphasizing best practices is associated with improved outcomes