Outcome and Predictors for Mortality in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock:A Dutch Nationwide Registry-Based Study of 75,407 Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated by PCI

It is important to gain more insight into the cardiogenic shock (CS) population, as currently, little is known on how to improve outcomes. Therefore, we assessed clinical outcome in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with and without CS at admission. Furthermore, the incidence of CS and predictors for mortality in CS patients were evaluated. The Netherlands Heart Registration (NHR) is a nationwide registry on all cardiac interventions. We used NHR data of ACS patients treated with PCI between 2015 and 2019. Among 75,407 ACS patients treated with PCI, 3028 patients (4.1%) were identified with CS, respectively 4.3%, 3.9%, 3.5%, and 4.3% per year. Factors associated with mortality in CS were age (HR 1.02, 95%CI 1.02-1.03), eGFR (HR 0.98, 95%CI 0.98-0.99), diabetes mellitus (DM) (HR 1.25, 95%CI 1.08-1.45), multivessel disease (HR 1.22, 95%CI 1.06-1.39), prior myocardial infarction (MI) (HR 1.24, 95%CI 1.06-1.45), and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) (HR 1.71, 95%CI 1.50-1.94). In conclusion, in this Dutch nationwide registry-based study of ACS patients treated by PCI, the incidence of CS was 4.1% over the 4-year study period. Predictors for mortality in CS were higher age, renal insufficiency, presence of DM, multivessel disease, prior MI, and OHCA

Characteristics, Treatment Strategies and Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction:A Contemporary Dutch Cohort

Cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Our study aimed to gain insights into patient characteristics, outcomes and treatment strategies in CS patients. Patients with CS who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between 2017 and 2021 were identified in a nationwide registry. Data on medical history, laboratory values, angiographic features and outcomes were retrospectively assessed. A total of 2328 patients with a mean age of 66 years and of whom 73% were male, were included. Mortality at 30 days was 39% for the entire cohort. Non-survivors presented with a lower mean blood pressure and increased heart rate, blood lactate and blood glucose levels (p-value for all &lt;0.001). Also, an increased prevalence of diabetes, multivessel coronary artery disease and a prior coronary event were found. Of all patients, 24% received mechanical circulatory support, of which the majority was via intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs). Furthermore, 79% of patients were treated with at least one vasoactive agent, and multivessel PCI was performed in 28%. In conclusion, a large set of hemodynamic, biochemical and patient-related characteristics was identified to be associated with mortality. Interestingly, multivessel PCI and IABPs were frequently applied despite a lack of evidence.</p

Characteristics, Treatment Strategies and Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Contemporary Dutch Cohort

Cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Our study aimed to gain insights into patient characteristics, outcomes and treatment strategies in CS patients. Patients with CS who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between 2017 and 2021 were identified in a nationwide registry. Data on medical history, laboratory values, angiographic features and outcomes were retrospectively assessed. A total of 2328 patients with a mean age of 66 years and of whom 73% were male, were included. Mortality at 30 days was 39% for the entire cohort. Non-survivors presented with a lower mean blood pressure and increased heart rate, blood lactate and blood glucose levels ( p-value for all <0.001). Also, an increased prevalence of diabetes, multivessel coronary artery disease and a prior coronary event were found. Of all patients, 24% received mechanical circulatory support, of which the majority was via intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs). Furthermore, 79% of patients were treated with at least one vasoactive agent, and multivessel PCI was performed in 28%. In conclusion, a large set of hemodynamic, biochemical and patient-related characteristics was identified to be associated with mortality. Interestingly, multivessel PCI and IABPs were frequently applied despite a lack of evidence

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support for treatment and prevention of hemodynamic instability

Als de hartfunctie plotseling sterk achteruitgaat - bijvoorbeeld door een groot hartinfarct (cardiogene shock) - kan een klein apparaat de pompfunctie ondersteunen om de bloeddoorstroming naar het hart en andere organen te waarborgen. Ook kan een dergelijk apparaat complicaties voorkomen tijdens hoogrisico-dotterbehandelingen bij patiënten met een kwetsbaar hart. Annemarie Engström onderzocht de behandeling met het Impella-systeem, een nieuw ontwikkelde hartpomp. Bij hoogrisico-dotterbehandelingen blijkt het systeem veilig en gemakkelijk. Voor patiënten met cardiogene shock zijn twee versies van de pomp beschikbaar: de Impella 2.5 en de Impella 5.0. Bij de ziekste patiënten lijkt de 5.0 geassocieerd met een lagere mortaliteit dan de 2.5. Deze observaties hebben geleid tot een protocol voor de behandeling van deze patiënten

Percutaneous mechanical cardiac assist in myocardial infarction. Where are we now, where are we going?

Since its first clinical application in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) in 1968, the intra aortic balloon pump (IABP) increasingly has been used for several clinical conditions requiring mechanical cardiac assistance. In current practice, IABP therapy is still the most accessible and most frequently used method of mechanical cardiac assistance. It is primarily being used as a therapeutic instrument for hemodynamic stabilization in left ventricular failure and cardiogenic shock, mainly in patients with myocardial infarction. Although IABP therapy showed to be effective for stabilization of hemodynamically compromised patients, it has failed to show any long-term survival benefit in any setting of acute myocardial infarction. The rapid developments in ventricular assist device technology have led to the availability of several percutaneous implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). These more potent percutaneous LVADs herald a promising alternative therapeutic approach for mechanical cardiac assistance other than IABP therapy. This article reviews the current status, capabilities, limitations, and future perspectives of currently available percutaneous treatment options for mechanical cardiac assistance in acute myocardial infarctio

Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention

Although coronary artery bypass grafting remains an important therapeutic option for patients with complex coronary artery disease, percutaneous coronary intervention strategies have become an established alternative. Nevertheless, treatment options for surgery-ineligible patients with complex coronary artery disease used to be limited, especially in patients with a reduced left ventricular function. Those patients are at high risk of profound hypotension and mortality, which may be adequately prevented by prophylactic placement of a percutaneous mechanical assist device. Although many devices have been developed and randomized evidence is still pending, the Impella LP2.5 device (Abiomed-Impella CardioSystems GmbH, Aachen, Germany) seems to be promising as it is easily applicable, carries a low complication rate and provides adequate circulatory suppor

Thromboembolic stroke in patients with a HeartMate-II left ventricular assist device - the role of anticoagulation

Background and purpose: It is unknown what the optimal anticoagulant level is to prevent thromboembolic stroke in patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support. We aimed to evaluate the relation between coagulation status and the occurrence of thromboembolic stroke in HeartMate-II LVAD assisted patients. Methods: Thirty-eight consecutive patients with a HeartMate-II LVAD were included. Coagulation status was classified according to INR and aPTT ratio at: 1) the moment of first thromboembolic stroke; and 2) during the two weeks preceding the first thromboembolic stroke to assess long-term coagulation status. In patients without stroke, coagulation status was determined just before heart transplant, VAD explantation or death, whichever came first, and at two weeks preceding these surrogate endpoints. Based on coagulation status, patients were divided in two groups: Group I (reference group) was defined as INR below 2 and aPTT ratio below 1.5; Group II (adequate anticoagulation) as INR above 2 or aPTT ratio above 1.5. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the odds ratio for developing stroke for patients with adequate anticoagulation compared to the reference Group. Results: Thromboembolic stroke occurred in six (16 %) patients, none within 2 weeks after LVAD implantation. Considering coagulation status at the time of event, patients in coagulation Group II had no decreased risk for thromboembolic stroke (OR 0.78; 95 % CI 0.12-5.0). Results for coagulation status 2 weeks prior of event could not be calculated as all six strokes occurred in Group II. Conclusion: In our experience anticoagulation within predefined targets is not associated with a reduced thromboembolic stroke risk in patients with a HeartMate-II LVAD on antiplatelet therapy. However, no firm statement about the effect of either anticoagulant or antiaggregant therapy can be made based on our study. A larger randomized study is needed to support the hypothesis that there may be no additional benefit of coumarin or heparin therapy compared with antiplatelet therapy alone

Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction: Impella CP/5.0 versus ECMO

BACKGROUND: Short-term mechanical circulatory support devices are increasingly used in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. As no randomised evidence is available, the choice between high-output Impella or extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is still a matter of debate. Real-life data are necessary to assess adverse outcomes and to help guide the treatment decision between the different devices. The purpose of this study was to compare characteristics and clinical outcomes of Impella CP/5.0 with ECMO support in patients with cardiogenic shock from myocardial infarction. METHODS: A retrospective, two-centre study was performed on all cardiogenic shock from myocardial infarction patients with Impella CP/5.0 or ECMO support, from 2006 until 2018. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Potential baseline imbalance between the groups was adjusted using inverse probability treatment weighting, and survival analysis was performed with an adjusted log-rank test. Secondarily, the occurrence of device-related complications (limb ischaemia, access site-related bleeding, access site-related infection) was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients were included (Impella, N=90; ECMO, N=38). The 30-day mortality was similar for both groups (53% vs. 49%, P=0.30), also after adjustment for potential baseline imbalance between the groups (weighted log-rank P=0.16). Patients with Impella support had significantly fewer device-related complications than patients treated with ECMO (respectively, 17% vs. 40%, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with Impella CP/5.0 or ECMO for cardiogenic shock after myocardial infarction did not differ in 30-day mortality. More device-related complications occurred with ECMO compared to Impella support