5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

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

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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 ( P <0.01 for all). Biventricular and isolated left ventricular congestion were common among patients who died or underwent HRT, respectively. Lactate, blood urea nitrogen, serum creatinine, and aspartate aminotransferase were highest in patients with HF-CS experiencing in-hospital death. Intraaortic balloon pump was the most commonly used AMCS device in the overall cohort and among patients receiving HRT. Patients receiving >1 AMCS device had the highest in-hospital mortality rate irrespective of the number of vasoactive drugs used. Mortality increased with deteriorating Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention stages (stage B: 0%, stage C: 10.7%, stage D: 29.4%, stage E: 54.5%, 1-way ANOVA=<0.001).

          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 >1 AMCS device.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cardiac power is the strongest hemodynamic correlate of mortality in cardiogenic shock: a report from the SHOCK trial registry.

          We sought to analyze clinical, angiographic, and outcome correlates of hemodynamic parameters in cardiogenic shock. The significance of right heart catheterization in critically ill patients is controversial, despite the prognostic importance of the derived measurements. Cardiac power is a novel hemodynamic parameter. A total of 541 patients with cardiogenic shock who were enrolled in the SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK (SHOCK) trial registry were included. Cardiac power output (CPO) (W) was calculated as mean arterial pressure x cardiac output/451. On univariate analysis, CPO, cardiac power index (CPI), cardiac output, cardiac index, stroke volume, left ventricular work, left ventricular work index, stroke work, mean arterial pressure, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (all p < 0.001), coronary perfusion pressure (p = 0.002), ejection fraction (p = 0.013), and pulmonary artery systolic pressure (p = 0.047) were associated with in-hospital mortality. In separate multivariate analyses, CPO (odds ratio per 0.20 W: 0.60 [95% confidence interval, 0.44 to 0.83], p = 0.002; n = 181) and CPI (odds ratio per 0.10 W/m(2): 0.65 [95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.87], p = 0.004; n = 178) remained the strongest independent hemodynamic correlates of in-hospital mortality after adjusting for age and history of hypertension. There was an inverse correlation between CPI and age (correlation coefficient: -0.334, p < 0.001). Women had a lower CPI than men (0.29 +/- 0.11 vs. 0.35 +/- 0.15 W/m(2), p = 0.005). After adjusting for age, female gender remained associated with CPI (p = 0.032). Cardiac power is the strongest independent hemodynamic correlate of in-hospital mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock. Increasing age and female gender are independently associated with lower cardiac power.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Epidemiology, Pathophysiology and Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock ‐ A position statement from the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

            Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex multifactorial clinical syndrome with extremely high mortality, developing as a continuum, and progressing from the initial insult (underlying cause) to the subsequent occurrence of organ failure and death. There is a large spectrum of CS presentations resulting from the interaction between an acute cardiac insult and a patient's underlying cardiac and overall medical condition. Phenotyping patients with CS may have clinical impact on management because classification would support initiation of appropriate therapies. CS management should consider appropriate organization of the health care services, and therapies must be given to the appropriately selected patients, in a timely manner, whilst avoiding iatrogenic harm. Although several consensus-driven algorithms have been proposed, CS management remains challenging and substantial investments in research and development have not yielded proof of efficacy and safety for most of the therapies tested, and outcome in this condition remains poor. Future studies should consider the identification of the new pathophysiological targets, and high-quality translational research should facilitate incorporation of more targeted interventions in clinical research protocols, aimed to improve individual patient outcomes. Designing outcome clinical trials in CS remains particularly challenging in this critical and very costly scenario in cardiology, but information from these trials is imperiously needed to better inform the guidelines and clinical practice. The goal of this review is to summarize the current knowledge concerning the definition, epidemiology, underlying causes, pathophysiology and management of CS based on important lessons from clinical trials and registries, with a focus on improving in-hospital management.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Standardized Team-Based Care for Cardiogenic Shock

              Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a multifactorial, hemodynamically complex syndrome associated with high mortality. Despite advances in reperfusion and mechanical circulatory support, management remains highly variable and outcomes poor.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Circulation: Heart Failure
                Circ: Heart Failure
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                1941-3289
                1941-3297
                May 2021
                May 2021
                : 14
                : 5
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston (J.H.-M.).
                [2 ]Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Inova Fairfax Medical Center, Falls Church, VA (S.S.S.).
                [3 ]The Cardiovascular Center, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA (K.L.T., J.L.H., N.M.H., N.K.K.).
                [4 ]Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (E.H.W.).
                [5 ]Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, D.C. (M.P.).
                [6 ]Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA (A.R.G.).
                [7 ]University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle (C.M.).
                [8 ]The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston (A.S.).
                [9 ]Baylor Scott &amp; White Advanced Heart Failure Clinic, Dallas, TX (D.W.).
                [10 ]Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA (M.K.).
                [11 ]Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL (E.V.).
                [12 ]Providence Heart Institute, Portland, OR (J.A.).
                [13 ]Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, NY (D.B.).
                Article
                10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.120.007924
                33905259
                235b76e0-54dc-4a09-a0be-2e92f7ca55c2
                © 2021
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article