Retrospective comparison of traditional and artificial intelligence-based heart failure phenotyping in a US health system to enable real-world evidence.

Objective: Quantitatively evaluate the quality of data underlying real-world evidence (RWE) in heart failure (HF). Design: Retrospective comparison of accuracy in identifying patients with HF and phenotypic information was made using traditional (ie, structured query language applied to structured electronic health record (EHR) data) and advanced (ie, artificial intelligence (AI) applied to unstructured EHR data) RWE approaches. The performance of each approach was measured by the harmonic mean of precision and recall (F1 score) using manual annotation of medical records as a reference standard. Setting: EHR data from a large academic healthcare system in North America between 2015 and 2019, with an expected catchment of approximately 5 00 000 patients. Population: 4288 encounters for 1155 patients aged 18-85 years, with 472 patients identified as having HF. Outcome measures: HF and associated concepts, such as comorbidities, left ventricular ejection fraction, and selected medications. Results: The average F1 scores across 19 HF-specific concepts were 49.0% and 94.1% for the traditional and advanced approaches, respectively (p\u3c0.001 for all concepts with available data). The absolute difference in F1 score between approaches was 45.1% (98.1% relative increase in F1 score using the advanced approach). The advanced approach achieved superior F1 scores for HF presence, phenotype and associated comorbidities. Some phenotypes, such as HF with preserved ejection fraction, revealed dramatic differences in extraction accuracy based on technology applied, with a 4.9% F1 score when using natural language processing (NLP) alone and a 91.0% F1 score when using NLP plus AI-based inference. Conclusions: A traditional RWE generation approach resulted in low data quality in patients with HF. While an advanced approach demonstrated high accuracy, the results varied dramatically based on extraction techniques. For future studies, advanced approaches and accuracy measurement may be required to ensure data are fit-for-purpose. Keywords: cardiac epidemiology; health informatics; heart failure

Intra-aortic Balloon Pump for Acute-on-Chronic Heart Failure Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock

The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is widely implanted as temporary mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock (CS). However, its use is declining following the results of the IABP-SHOCK II trial, which failed to show a clinical benefit of the IABP in acute coronary syndrome (ACS)-related CS. Acute-on-chronic heart failure has become an increasingly recognized, distinct cause of CS (HF-CS). The pathophysiology of HF-CS differs from that of ACS-CS because it typically represents the progression from a state of congestion (with relatively preserved cardiac output) to a low-output state with hypoperfusion. The IABP is a volume-displacement pump that promotes forward flow from a high-capacitance reservoir to low-capacitance vessels, improving peripheral perfusion and decreasing left ventricular afterload in the setting of high filling pressures. The IABP can improve ventricular-vascular coupling and, therefore, myocardial energetics. Additionally, many patients with HF-CS are candidates for cardiac replacement therapies (left ventricular assist device or heart transplantation) and, therefore, may benefit froma bridge strategy that stabilizes the hemodynamics and end-organ function in preparation for more durable therapies. Notably, the new United Network for Organ Sharing donor heart allocation system has recently prioritized patients on IABP support.This review describes the role of IABP in the treatment of HF-CS. It also briefly discusses new strategies for vascular access as well as fully implantable versions for longer duration of support

Impact of age on outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock

Background: Advanced age is associated with poor outcomes in cardiovascular emergencies. We sought to determine the association of age, use of support devices and shock severity on mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS).Methods: Characteristics and outcomes in CS patients included in the Cardiogenic Shock Work Group (CSWG) registry from 8 US sites between 2016 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were subdivided by age into quintiles and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) shock severity.Results: We reviewed 1,412 CS patients with a mean age of 59.9 ± 14.8 years, including 273 patients > 73 years of age. Older patients had significantly higher comorbidity burden including diabetes, hypertension and coronary artery disease. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was used in 332 (23%) patients, Impella in 410 (29%) and intra-aortic balloon pump in 770 (54%) patients. Overall in-hospital survival was 69%, which incrementally decreased with advancing age (p < 0.001). Higher age was associated with higher mortality across all SCAI stages (p = 0.003 for SCAI stage C; p < 0.001 for SCAI stage D; p = 0.005 for SCAI stage E), regardless of etiology (p < 0.001).Conclusion: Increasing age is associated with higher in-hospital mortality in CS across all stages of shock severity. Hence, in addition to other comorbidities, increasing age should be prioritized during patient selection for device support in CS

Predicting survival in patients with acute decompensated heart failure complicated by cardiogenic shock

Background: Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) has unique pathophysiological background requiring specific patient stratification, management and therapeutic targets. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to derive a simple stratification tool to predict survival in patients with ADHF complicated by CS. Methods and results: Using logistic regression, univariable testing was performed to identify the variables potentially associated with 28-day mortality. We propose a new logistic model (ALC-Shock score) based on three easy parameters (age, serum creatinine and serum lactate at the ICU admission) as a powerful predictor of survival or successful bridge to heart replacement therapy at 28-day follow-up in this specific population. A multivariable analysis (logistic model) was performed to evaluate the association between selected variables and outcome (overall death at 28-day follow up). The score was then validated in a different cohort of 93 ADHF-CS patients and compared to a previous developed score (the Cardshock score).Overall, 28-day mortality was 34%. The ALC-shock score showed better discrimination (Area Under the Curve-AUC- 0.82; 95% CI 0.73–0.91) as compared to the Cardshock score (AUC 0.67; 95% CI 0.55–0.79) (p = 0.009) to predict 28-days overall mortality. In the validation cohort the AUC for the ALC-shock score was 0.66. Conclusions: A simple score including age, lactates and creatinine on admission could be considered to predict short-term mortality in CS-ADHF patients in order to drive towards a treatment intensification

Left-Ventricular Unloading With Impella During Refractory Cardiac Arrest Treated With Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is the implementation of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) during refractory cardiac arrest. The role of left-ventricular (LV) unloading with Impella in addition to VA-ECMO ("ECMELLA") remains unclear during ECPR. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to characterize patients with ECPR receiving LV unloading and to compare in-hospital mortality between ECMELLA and VA-ECMO during ECPR.DATA SOURCES: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and abstract websites of the three largest cardiology societies (American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and European Society of Cardiology).STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies with adult patients with refractory cardiac arrest receiving ECPR with ECMELLA or VA-ECMO until July 2023 according to the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis checklist.DATA EXTRACTION: Patient and treatment characteristics and in-hospital mortality from 13 study records at 32 hospitals with a total of 1014 ECPR patients. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CI were computed with the Mantel-Haenszel test using a random-effects model.DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven hundred sixty-two patients (75.1%) received VA-ECMO and 252 (24.9%) ECMELLA. Compared with VA-ECMO, the ECMELLA group was comprised of more patients with initial shockable electrocardiogram rhythms (58.6% vs. 49.3%), acute myocardial infarctions (79.7% vs. 51.5%), and percutaneous coronary interventions (79.0% vs. 47.5%). VA-ECMO alone was more frequently used in pulmonary embolism (9.5% vs. 0.7%). Age, rate of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and low-flow times were similar between both groups. ECMELLA support was associated with reduced odds of mortality (OR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.30-0.91]) and higher odds of good neurologic outcome (OR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.17-4.22]) compared with VA-ECMO support alone. ECMELLA therapy was associated with numerically increased but not significantly higher complication rates. Primary results remained robust in multiple sensitivity analyses.CONCLUSIONS: ECMELLA support was predominantly used in patients with acute myocardial infarction and VA-ECMO for pulmonary embolism. ECMELLA support during ECPR might be associated with improved survival and neurologic outcome despite higher complication rates. However, indications and frequency of ECMELLA support varied strongly between institutions. Further scientific evidence is urgently required to elaborate standardized guidelines for the use of LV unloading during ECPR.</p

Clinical Outcomes Associated With Acute Mechanical Circulatory Support Utilization in Heart Failure Related Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock occurring in the setting of advanced heart failure (HF-CS) is increasingly common. However, recent studies have focused almost exclusively on acute myocardial infarction-related CS. We sought to define clinical, hemodynamic, metabolic, and treatment parameters associated with clinical outcomes among patients with HF-CS, using data from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry. METHODS: Patients with HF-CS were identified from the multicenter Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry and divided into 3 outcome categories assessed at hospital discharge: mortality, heart replacement therapy (HRT: durable ventricular assist device or orthotopic heart transplant), or native heart survival. Clinical characteristics, hemodynamic, laboratory parameters, drug therapies, acute mechanical circulatory support device (AMCS) utilization, and Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention stages were compared across the 3 outcome cohorts. RESULTS: Of the 712 patients with HF-CS identified, 180 (25.3%) died during their index admission, 277 (38.9%) underwent HRT (durable ventricular assist device or orthotopic heart transplant), and 255 (35.8%) experienced native heart survival without HRT. Patients who died had the highest right atrial pressure and heart rate and the lowest mean arterial pressure of the 3 outcome groups ( CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HF-CS experiencing in-hospital mortality had a high prevalence of biventricular congestion and markers of end-organ hypoperfusion. Substantial heterogeneity exists with use of AMCS in HF-CS with intraaortic balloon pump being the most common device used and high rates of in-hospital mortality after exposure to \u3e1 AMCS device

Position paper for the organization of ECMO programs for cardiac failure in adults

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used increasingly for both respiratory and cardiac failure in adult patients. Indications for ECMO use in cardiac failure include severe refractory cardiogenic shock, refractory ventricular arrhythmia, active cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest, and acute or decompensated right heart failure. Evidence is emerging to guide the use of this therapy for some of these indications, but there remains a need for additional evidence to guide best practices. As a result, the use of ECMO may vary widely across centers. The purpose of this document is to highlight key aspects of care delivery, with the goal of codifying the current use of this rapidly growing technology. A major challenge in this field is the need to emergently deploy ECMO for cardiac failure, often with limited time to assess the appropriateness of patients for the intervention. For this reason, we advocate for a multidisciplinary team of experts to guide institutional use of this therapy and the care of patients receiving it. Rigorous patient selection and careful attention to potential complications are key factors in optimizing patient outcomes. Seamless patient transport and clearly defined pathways for transition of care to centers capable of providing heart replacement therapies (e.g., durable ventricular assist device or heart transplantation) are essential to providing the highest level of care for those patients stabilized by ECMO but unable to be weaned from the device. Ultimately, concentration of the most complex care at high-volume centers with advanced cardiac capabilities may be a way to significantly improve the care of this patient population