Risk Stratification for Patients in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND Mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS) remains high. Early risk stratification is crucial to make adequate treatment decisions. OBJECTIVES This study sought to develop an easy-to-use, readily available risk prediction score for short-term mortality in patients with CS, derived from the IABP-SHOCK II (Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock) trial. METHODS The score was developed using a stepwise multivariable regression analysis. RESULTS Six variables emerged as independent predictors for 30-day mortality and were used as score parameters: age > 73 years, prior stroke, glucose at admission >10.6 mmol/l (191 mg/dl), creatinine at admission >132.6 mmol/l (1.5 mg/dl), Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow grade 5 mmol/l. Either 1 or 2 points were attributed to each variable, leading to a score in 3 risk categories: low (0 to 2), intermediate (3 or 4), and high (5 to 9). The observed 30-day mortality rates were 23.8%, 49.2%, and 76.6%, respectively (p <0.0001). Validation in the IABP-SHOCK II registry population showed good discrimination with an area under the curve of 0.79. External validation in the CardShock trial population (n = 137) showed short-term mortality rates of 28.0% (score 0 to 2), 42.9% (score 3 to 4), and 77.3% (score 5 to 9; p <0.001) and an area under the curve of 0.73. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a stepwise increase in mortality between the different score categories (0 to 2 vs. 3 to 4: p = 0.04; 0 to 2 vs. 5 to 9: p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS The IABP-SHOCK II risk score can be easily calculated in daily clinical practice and strongly correlated with mortality in patients with infarct-related CS. It may help stratify patient risk for short-term mortality and might, thus, facilitate clinical decision making. (Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II [ IABP-SHOCK II]; NCT00491036) (J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69: 1913-20) (C) 2017 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.Peer reviewe

Prognostic Impact of Active Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction, Results from the Culprit-Shock Trial

Objectives: To analyze the use and prognostic impact of active mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in a large prospective contemporary cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Background: Although increasingly used in clinical practice, data on the efficacy and safety of active MCS devices in patients with CS complicating AMI are limited. Methods: This is a predefined subanalysis of the CULPRIT-SHOCK randomized trial and prospective registry. Patients with CS, AMI and multivessel coronary artery disease were categorized in two groups: (1) use of at least one active MCS device vs. (2) no active MCS or use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) only. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death or renal replacement therapy at 30 days. Results: Two hundred of 1055 (19%) patients received at least one active MCS device (n = 112 Impella®; n = 95 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); n = 6 other devices). The primary endpoint occurred significantly more often in patients treated with active MCS devices compared with those without active MCS devices (142 of 197, 72% vs. 374 of 827, 45%; p < 0.001). All-cause mortality and bleeding rates were significantly higher in the active MCS group (all p < 0.001). After multivariable adjustment, the use of active MCS was significantly associated with the primary endpoint (odds ratio (OR) 4.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7–5.9; p < 0.001). Conclusions: In the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, active MCS devices were used in approximately one fifth of patients. Patients treated with active MCS devices showed worse outcome at 30 days and 1 year

Heart rate and blood pressure interactions in the development of erectile dysfunction in high-risk cardiovascular patients

Aims Erectile dysfunction (ED) is associated with cardiovascular risk factors as elevated systolic blood pressure (SBP), resting high heart rate (HR), and endothelial dysfunction and predicts cardiovascular events. However, the interaction between high HR and SBP and the development of ED remains unclear. Methods and Results We evaluated 1015 male patients enrolled in the ED substudy of ONTARGET and TRANSCEND, examining the influence of mean HR and mean SBP obtained over all study visits (mean 10.9±1.4 study visits) and their interaction with ED. In patients without pre-existing ED, new onset ED was detected in 29% of patients below, and 41% of patients above, the median of mean HR (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.8–2.5, p = 0.0047). In patients with pre-existing ED, high HR had no add-on effect. With or without pre-existing ED, high SBP had no influence after adjustment for covariates (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.66–1.59, p = 0.91). In a continuous model, it was shown that effects of high HR were prominent at low Kölner (Cologne) Evaluation of Erectile Function (KEED) score baseline values and in the presence of SBP above the median. Conclusions In patients at risk for cardiovascular events, high HR is associated with ED, whereas the effect of high SBP was not significant. High resting HR might represent a cardiovascular risk indicator. Whether HR represents a potential treatment target to improve ED in high-risk individuals must be scrutinized in prospective trials

Prognostic Impact of Active Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction, Results from the Culprit-Shock Trial

Objectives: To analyze the use and prognostic impact of active mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in a large prospective contemporary cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Background: Although increasingly used in clinical practice, data on the efficacy and safety of active MCS devices in patients with CS complicating AMI are limited. Methods: This is a predefined subanalysis of the CULPRIT-SHOCK randomized trial and prospective registry. Patients with CS, AMI and multivessel coronary artery disease were categorized in two groups: (1) use of at least one active MCS device vs. (2) no active MCS or use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) only. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death or renal replacement therapy at 30 days. Results: Two hundred of 1055 (19%) patients received at least one active MCS device (n = 112 Impella®; n = 95 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); n = 6 other devices). The primary endpoint occurred significantly more often in patients treated with active MCS devices compared with those without active MCS devices (142 of 197, 72% vs. 374 of 827, 45%; p < 0.001). All-cause mortality and bleeding rates were significantly higher in the active MCS group (all p < 0.001). After multivariable adjustment, the use of active MCS was significantly associated with the primary endpoint (odds ratio (OR) 4.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7–5.9; p < 0.001). Conclusions: In the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, active MCS devices were used in approximately one fifth of patients. Patients treated with active MCS devices showed worse outcome at 30 days and 1 year

Prognostic Impact of Active Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction, Results from the Culprit-Shock Trial

Objectives: To analyze the use and prognostic impact of active mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in a large prospective contemporary cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Background: Although increasingly used in clinical practice, data on the efficacy and safety of active MCS devices in patients with CS complicating AMI are limited. Methods: This is a predefined subanalysis of the CULPRIT-SHOCK randomized trial and prospective registry. Patients with CS, AMI and multivessel coronary artery disease were categorized in two groups: (1) use of at least one active MCS device vs. (2) no active MCS or use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) only. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death or renal replacement therapy at 30 days. Results: Two hundred of 1055 (19%) patients received at least one active MCS device (n = 112 Impella®; n = 95 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); n = 6 other devices). The primary endpoint occurred significantly more often in patients treated with active MCS devices compared with those without active MCS devices (142 of 197, 72% vs. 374 of 827, 45%; p &lt; 0.001). All-cause mortality and bleeding rates were significantly higher in the active MCS group (all p &lt; 0.001). After multivariable adjustment, the use of active MCS was significantly associated with the primary endpoint (odds ratio (OR) 4.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7–5.9; p &lt; 0.001). Conclusions: In the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, active MCS devices were used in approximately one fifth of patients. Patients treated with active MCS devices showed worse outcome at 30 days and 1 year

Prognostic Impact of Active Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction, Results from the Culprit-Shock Trial

Objectives: To analyze the use and prognostic impact of active mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in a large prospective contemporary cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Background: Although increasingly used in clinical practice, data on the efficacy and safety of active MCS devices in patients with CS complicating AMI are limited. Methods: This is a predefined subanalysis of the CULPRIT-SHOCK randomized trial and prospective registry. Patients with CS, AMI and multivessel coronary artery disease were categorized in two groups: (1) use of at least one active MCS device vs. (2) no active MCS or use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) only. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death or renal replacement therapy at 30 days. Results: Two hundred of 1055 (19%) patients received at least one active MCS device (n = 112 Impella®; n = 95 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); n = 6 other devices). The primary endpoint occurred significantly more often in patients treated with active MCS devices compared with those without active MCS devices (142 of 197, 72% vs. 374 of 827, 45%; p < 0.001). All-cause mortality and bleeding rates were significantly higher in the active MCS group (all p < 0.001). After multivariable adjustment, the use of active MCS was significantly associated with the primary endpoint (odds ratio (OR) 4.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7–5.9; p < 0.001). Conclusions: In the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, active MCS devices were used in approximately one fifth of patients. Patients treated with active MCS devices showed worse outcome at 30 days and 1 year