Clinical scenarios for use of transvalvular microaxial pumps in acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock – A European experienced users working group opinion

Abstract For patients with myocardial infarct-related cardiogenic shock (CS), urgent percutaneous coronary intervention is the recommended treatment strategy to limit cardiac and systemic ischemia. However, a specific therapeutic intervention is often missing in non-ischemic CS cases. Though drug treatment with inotropes and/or vasopressors may be required to stabilize the patient initially, their ongoing use is associated with excess mortality. Coronary intervention in unstable patients often leads to further hemodynamic compromise either during or shortly after revascularization. Support devices like the intra-aortic balloon pump failed to improve clinical outcomes in infarct-related CS. Currently, more powerful and active hemodynamic support devices unloading the left ventricle such as transvalvular microaxial pumps are available and are being increasingly used. However, as for other devices large randomized trials are not yet available, and device use is based on registry data and expert consensus. In this article, a multidisciplinary group of experienced users of transvalvular microaxial pumps outlines the pathophysiological background on hemodynamic changes in CS, the available mechanical support devices, and current guideline recommendations. Furthermore, different hemodynamic situations in several case-based scenarios are used to illustrate candidate settings and to provide the theoretic and scientific rationale for left-ventricular unloading in these scenarios. Finally, organization of shock networks, monitoring, weaning, and typical complications and their prevention are discussed

Lactate is a Prognostic Factor in Patients Admitted With Suspected ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

AIMS: The diagnosis of cardiogenic shock depends on clinical signs of poor perfusion and low blood pressure. Lactate concentration will increase with poor tissue perfusion, and it has prognostic value in cardiogenic shock patients. We sought to assess the prognostic value of lactate concentration in subjects admitted with suspected ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: In 2,094 (93%) out of 2,247 consecutive suspected STEMI-subjects, lactate concentration was measured on admission. The prognostic value of lactate concentration on 30-day mortality was assessed in addition to clinical signs of peripheral hypoperfusion, systolic blood pressure (sBP), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in multivariable models.Lactate concentration added prognostic information beyond signs of peripheral hypoperfusion, sBP, and LVEF, and was independently associated with 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.11 [1.07-1.14], P < 0.0001). Lactate also provided predictive information on 30-day mortality to the combination of signs of peripheral hypoperfusion, sBP, and LVEF (area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve = 0.88 vs. 0.83, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, admission lactate concentration in suspected STEMI-subjects contains prognostic information on 30-day mortality when added to variables used in cardiogenic shock-definition. We recommend lactate measurement in STEMI-subjects, especially when signs of compromised hemodynamics are present

Targeted temperature management at 33°C versus 36°C after cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND: Unconscious survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest have a high risk of death or poor neurologic function. Therapeutic hypothermia is recommended by international guidelines, but the supporting evidence is limited, and the target temperature associated with the best outcome is unknown. Our objective was to compare two target temperatures, both intended to prevent fever. METHODS: In an international trial, we randomly assigned 950 unconscious adults after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac cause to targeted temperature management at either 33 degrees C or 36 degrees C. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality through the end of the trial. Secondary outcomes included a composite of poor neurologic function or death at 180 days, as evaluated with the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) scale and the modified Rankin scale. RESULTS: In total, 939 patients were included in the primary analysis. At the end of the trial, 50% of the patients in the 33 degrees C group (235 of 473 patients) had died, as compared with 48% of the patients in the 36 degrees C group (225 of 466 patients) (hazard ratio with a temperature of 33 degrees C, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 to 1.28; P=0.51). At the 180-day follow-up, 54% of the patients in the 33 degrees C group had died or had poor neurologic function according to the CPC, as compared with 52% of patients in the 36 degrees C group (risk ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.16; P=0.78). In the analysis using the modified Rankin scale, the comparable rate was 52% in both groups (risk ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.14; P=0.87). The results of analyses adjusted for known prognostic factors were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In unconscious survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac cause, hypothermia at a targeted temperature of 33 degrees C did not confer a benefit as compared with a targeted temperature of 36 degrees C. (Funded by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation and others; TTM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01020916.)

Impella Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: Matched-pair iabp-shock II trial 30-day mortality analysis

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices are increasingly used in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), despite limited evidence for their effectiveness. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes associated with use of the Impella device compared with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and medical treatment in patients with AMI-CS. METHODS: Data of patients with AMI-CS treated with the Impella device at European tertiary care hospitals were collected retrospectively. All patients underwent early revascularization and received optimal medical treatment. Using IABP-SHOCK II (Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II) trial inclusion and exclusion criteria, 372 patients were identified and included in this analysis. These patients were matched to 600 patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial. The following baseline criteria were used as matching parameters: age, sex, mechanical ventilation, ejection fraction, prior cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and lactate. Primary end point was 30-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: In total, 237 patients treated with an Impella could be matched to 237 patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial. Baseline parameters were similarly distributed after matching. There was no significant difference in 30-day all-cause mortality (48.5% versus 46.4%, P=0.64). Severe or life-threatening bleeding (8.5% versus 3.0%, P<0.01) and peripheral vascular complications (9.8% versus 3.8%, P=0.01) occurred significantly more often in the Impella group. Limiting the analysis to IABP-treated patients as a control group did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis of patients with AMI-CS, the use of an Impella device was not associated with lower 30-day mortality compared with matched patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial treated with an IABP or medical therapy. To further evaluate this, a large randomized trial is warranted to determine the effect of the Impella device on outcome in patients with AMI-CS. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03313687