Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock Research Articles

Serial invasive hemodynamics and clinical characteristics of patients with shock with and without invasive mechanical ventilation

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements None. Background Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is commonly used in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit (CICU) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). IMV causes hemodynamic changes that may impact outcomes based upon a patient’s profile. Our aim is to characterize the clinical profile and detailed serial hemodynamic parameters in the first 24-hours according to the use of IMV in patients with shock admitted to the CICU. Methods Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with shock admitted to the CICU at Bellevue Hospital, undergoing pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) placement within the first 24 hours of admission, from February 2022 to June 2023. Clinical characteristics, as well as specific hemodynamic parameters collected and curated at times 0, 6, 12, 18 and 24 hours were from PAC placement compared between patients with and without IMV. Results A total of 101 patients were included (95% with cardiogenic shock), 59 receiving IMV (age 64 ± 15, 24% women) and 42 non-intubated (61 ± 13, 33% women). Non-intubated patients had higher prevalence of hypertension, prior coronary artery disease and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), while acute coronary syndromes (44%) and cardiac arrest (12%) were more common causes of admission in patients undergoing IMV. Mixed shock predominated in IMV patients (51 vs 17%, p <0.001), whereas cardiogenic shock (CS) was more common in non-intubated patients (83 vs 41%, p <0.01). Patients with acute myocardial infarction CS (AMI-CS) were more likely to undergo IMV, while patients with heart failure CS (HF-CS) were more likely to be non-intubated. Patients undergoing IMV were more likely to have mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and ventricular dilatation compared to non-intubated patients (LVEDD 5.7 cm vs 4.9 cm, p 0.002). Patients undergoing IMV had a higher incidence of severe shock compared to the non-intubated group (31% vs 19% SCAI Shock D), higher lactate levels and greater use of vasoactive drugs (figure 1A). Patients undergoing IMV had significant improvements in cardiac power output (CPO), diastolic blood pressure and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) (figure 1B). Shock severity by SCAI SHOCK classification had a more notable improvement at 24 hours in patients with IMV compared to non-intubated patients (figure 1C), with a non-statistically significant improvement in lactate clearance in the first 24 hours (Figure 1D). Conclusions IMV in patients with CS is more commonly seen in patients with AMI-CS and among those with higher baseline shock severity and greater use of vasoactive medications. IMV is associated with significant improvements in shock severity, CPO and SVR at 24 hours when compared to patients with shock who are not intubated, which could be related to higher use of vasopressors. Further investigations are warranted to understand the impact of IMV on outcomes of patients with CS and how they might vary according to hemodynamic profile.

A Decade of Inertia in Adopting Guidelines and Still Going on: Is It Time to Lay in Rest Intra-aortic Balloon Pump for Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock?

A Decade of Inertia in Adopting Guidelines and Still Going on: Is It Time to Lay in Rest Intra-aortic Balloon Pump for Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock?

Impella as Bridge to Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device in Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock Patients.

Implantation of durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) poses specific challenges (small left ventricular size, acute infarct area, need for antithrombotic therapy, status Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) 1 with impaired organ function and derangements in coagulation and inflammatory parameters) which may affect outcomes. We reviewed data of all AMI-CS patients who were implanted LVAD after Impella support at a referral center with the aim to analyze feasibility, timing, and outcomes of durable LVAD implantation after tMCS with Impella due to AMI-CS. Twenty-one patients were treated between 2013 and 2023: all were in Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) class D-E and INTERMACS 1-2 at presentation, median LV ejection fraction (EF) and LV end-diastolic diameter (EDD) were 15 (10-20)% and 57 (54-60) mm, respectively. Eleven patients (52%) were supported with Impella CP, seven with Impella 5.0 (33%), and three (14%) with Impella 2.5. Axillary cannulation was performed in nine patients (43%). Five patients (24%) had concomitant venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support. Median duration of Impella support was 12 (8-14) days. Overall, the use of Impella was characterized by low rate of complications and allowed successful bridge to durable LVAD in all patients, with 100% 30 day survival rate.

Scrutinizing the Role of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Has Clinical Practice Outpaced the Evidence?

The use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for temporary mechanical circulatory support in various clinical scenarios has been increasing consistently, despite the lack of sufficient evidence regarding its benefit and safety from adequately powered randomized controlled trials. Although the ARREST trial (Advanced Reperfusion Strategies for Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation) and a secondary analysis of the PRAGUE OHCA trial (Prague Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) provided some evidence in favor of VA-ECMO in the setting of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the INCEPTION trial (Early Initiation of Extracorporeal Life Support in Refractory Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) has not found a relevant improvement of short-term mortality with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In addition, the results of the recently published ECLS-SHOCK trial (Extracorporeal Life Support in Cardiogenic Shock) and ECMO-CS trial (Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock) discourage the routine use of VA-ECMO in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock. Ongoing clinical trials (ANCHOR [Assessment of ECMO in Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock, NCT04184635], REVERSE [Impella CP With VA ECMO for Cardiogenic Shock, NCT03431467], UNLOAD ECMO [Left Ventricular Unloading to Improve Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock Patients on VA-ECMO, NCT05577195], PIONEER [Hemodynamic Support With ECMO and IABP in Elective Complex High-risk PCI, NCT04045873]) may clarify the usefulness of VA-ECMO in specific patient subpopulations and the efficacy of combined mechanical circulatory support strategies. Pending further data to refine patient selection and management recommendations for VA-ECMO, it remains uncertain whether the present usage of this device improves outcomes.

Structured Weaning From the Impella Left Ventricular Micro-Axial Pump in Acute Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock and Protected Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Experience From a Non-Cardiac Surgical Centre

The Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) temporary percutaneous left ventricular assist device is increasingly used as mechanical circulatory support in patients with acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMICS) or those undergoing high-risk protected percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The optimal weaning regimen remains to be defined. We implemented a structured weaning protocol in a series of 10 consecutive patients receiving Impella support for protected PCI or AMICS treated with PCI in a high volume non-cardiac surgery centre. Weaning after revascularisation was titrated to native heart recovery using both haemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters. Ten patients (eight male, two female; aged 43-70 years) received Impella support for AMICS (80%) or protected PCI (20%). Cardiogenic shock was of Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions grade C-E of severity in 80%, and median left ventricular end-diastolic pressure was 31 mmHg. Protocol implementation allowed successful weaning in eight of 10 patients with a median support time of 29 hours (range, 4-48 hours). Explantation was associated with an increase in heart rate (81 vs 88 bpm; p=0.005), but no significant change in Cardiac Index (2.9 vs 2.9 L/min/m2), mean arterial pressure (79 vs 82 mmHg), vasopressor requirement (10% vs 10%), or serum lactate (1.0 vs 1.0). Median durations of intensive care and hospital stay were 3 and 6 days, respectively. At 30 days, the mortality rate was 20%, with median left ventricular ejection fraction of 40%. A structured and dynamic weaning protocol for patients with AMICS and protected PCI supported by the Impella device is feasible in a non-cardiac surgery centre. Larger studies are needed to assess generalisability of such a weaning protocol.

Safety Of Mechanical Circulatory Support Use For Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock Among Octogenerians: A Nationwide Cohort Analysis Of United States

Safety Of Mechanical Circulatory Support Use For Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock Among Octogenerians: A Nationwide Cohort Analysis Of United States

Timing and treatment strategies according to SCAI classification in cardiogenic shock

Abstract In patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), particularly those with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), evidence suggests that timely diagnosis and treatment interventions are critical in the prevention of haemo-metabolic compromise. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) has shown potential in facilitating revascularization and recovery of patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). Timing of treatment strategies for CS patients needs to be optimized for use of tMCS devices that are applicable to this heterogeneous patient population. Here, the latest evidence as well as the gaps in knowledge surrounding the role of time in the management of patients with CS is summarized.

Abstract 15665: Lack of Association Between Inpatient Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Volume and Thirty-Day Readmissions After Acute Myocardial Infarction- Cardiogenic Shock

Introduction: Volume-outcome relationship data is limited for acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). Revascularization is mainstay of therapy in AMI-CS. Objectives: Authors sought to examine relation between hospital inpatient percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) volume and 30-day readmissions after an AMI-CS admission. Methods: Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) 2016-2019 was analyzed. Hospitals were categorized into quartiles (Q1, lowest to Q4, highest) based on annual inpatient PCI volume. Primary outcome of interest was 30-day unplanned all-cause readmissions. Secondary outcomes included cardiac, non-cardiac and heart-failure (HF) readmissions at 30-days. Results: A total of 49,558 index AMI-CS admissions were present in 3,954 PCI performing hospitals. Median hospital PCI volume was 174 (inter-quartile range 70-316). 59% admissions for AMI-CS were present in quartile Q4. Overall, 30-day readmission rate was 18.5% (n=9,179); of which 56.2% were cardiac, 43.8% were non-cardiac and 25.8% were related to HF. We did not find any difference in 30-day all-cause readmissions (Q1 = 17.6% vs. Q2 = 18.4% vs. Q3 = 18.2% vs. Q4 = 18.7%, p=0.55). Similarly, cardiac (Q1 = 10.9% vs. Q2 = 11.0% vs. Q3 = 10.6% vs. Q4 = 10.2%, p=0.29), and HF (Q1 = 5.0% vs. Q2 = 4.8% vs. Q3 = 4.8% vs. Q4 = 4.8%, p=0.99) readmissions were not different across quartiles. Non-cardiac readmissions were more-commonly observed in higher quartiles (Q1 = 6.7% vs. Q2 = 7.4% vs. Q3 = 7.7% vs. Q4 = 8.5%, p=0.001). However, no significance was noted with any outcome after multivariable adjustment. Similarly, no relationship was observed between hospital PCI volume as continuous variable and all-cause or cause-specific readmissions on restricted cubic spline analysis. Conclusions: In a national representative sample of 3,954 hospitals with 49,558 AMI-CS admissions, we found lack of an association between hospital PCI volume and 30-day all cause or cause-specific readmissions.

Network meta-analysis of temporary mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock

We performed a network meta-analysis of 11 published randomized clinical trials examining the use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in adults with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMICS), including 1053 total patients with an observed in-hospital or 30-day mortality of 40.4%. None of the temporary MCS devices was associated with lower in-hospital or 30-day mortality compared with initial medical therapy or any other MCS device, either individually or in combination. These data do not support the routine use of temporary MCS devices for the purpose of reducing short-term mortality in unselected patients with AMICS.

Escalation strategies, management, and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock patients receiving percutaneous left ventricular support.

There are limited national-level data on the contemporary practices of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) use in acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). We utilized the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-National/Nationwide Inpatient Sampledata (2005-2017) to identify adult admissions (>18 years) with AMI-CS. MCS devices were classified as intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVAD), or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We evaluated trends in the initial device used (IABP alone, pLVAD alone or ≥2 MCS devices), device escalation, bridging to durable LVAD/heart transplantation, and predictors of in-hospital mortality and device escalation. Among 327,283 AMI-CS admissions, 131,435 (40.2%) had an MCS device placed with available information on timing of placement. IABP, pLVAD, and ≥2 MCS devices were used as initial device in 120,928 (92.0%), 8202 (6.2%), and 2305 (1.7%) admissions, respectively. Most admissions were maintained on the initial MCS device with 1%-1.5% being escalated (IABP to pLVAD/ECMO, pLVAD to ECMO). Urban, medium, and large-sized hospitals and acute multiorgan failure were significant independent predictors of MCS escalation. In admissions receiving MCS, escalation of MCS device was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio:1.56, 95% confidence interval:1.38-1.75; p < 0.001). Admissions receiving durable LVAD/heart transplantation increased over time in those initiated on pLVAD and ≥2 MCS devices, resulting in lower in-hospital mortality. In this 13-year study, escalation of MCS in AMI-CS was associated with higher in-hospital mortality suggestive of higher acuity of illness. The increase in number of durable LVAD/heart transplantations alludes to the role of MCS as successful bridge strategies.

SHOCK1: Penn Medicine Multidisciplinary Shock Team Model for Improved Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock and Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support

Purpose/Background: The implementation of a protocol-based, multidisciplinary shock team approach in tertiary centers can lead to an organized approach to care and early implementation of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) in the appropriate patient. The Penn Medicine Cardiogenic Shock Team (PMCST) was established in November 2019. We have reviewed our data to demonstrate the utility and viability of the PMCST model by highlighting improved outcomes in our patient population compared to published outcomes in the literature. Methods: We collected data on our shock team since its inception from 11/2019-1/2023. These data include review of patient profiles, tMCS use, and outcomes of our shock patients, including overall disposition as well as disposition after tMCS. Results: From 11/25/2019-1/15/2023, our team had 498 total shock calls. Three hundred and forty-three (69%) were accepted by our shock team (“Go”) and included in our analysis. One hundred and sixty did not meet criteria (“No Go”), most commonly because they were not candidates for advanced support. All patients were characterized by SCAI and Intermacs classifications as well as shock etiology. The largest number of accepted patients were SCAI D (131), followed by SCAI C (105) and E (83), respectively. Eighty-nine percent of patients fell into Intermacs classifications 1-3, with the highest number of Intermacs 2 patients at 132. The predominant diagnosis was Acute Decompensated Heart Failure-Cardiogenic Shock (ADHF-CS) in 111 patients (32%), with 67 patients (20%) diagnosed with Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock (AMI-CS). Our team also accepted 17 patients with diagnoses related to ventricular tachycardia (VT storm, recurrent VT). Shock team calls were predominantly outside hospital (OSH) referrals (93%), and the remaining 7% were internal consults to the PMCST. Of accepted OSH patients, 143 had tMCS present on arrival, with the majority being intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and Impella CP, while 183 patients utilized tMCS during admission. Multiple tMCS devices were used concomitantly in 61 patients, the majority of whom with either ECPella (Impella CP and VA-ECMO) or IABP with VA-ECMO at 37% and 28%, respectively. In patients requiring tMCS, 104 (57%) remain alive, 91 (69%) of whom have since been discharged. With regard to our 343 accepted shock team patients, 240 (70%) remain alive, while 230 (67%) of whom were discharged alive. Summary: Our results show that a multidisciplinary shock team model represents a successful strategy leading to a multidisciplinary approach to care and timely deployment of tMCS. These data suggest the PMCST model leads to improved outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock.Figure 1. Disposition of PMCST Shock PatientsFigure 2. Types of Concomitant tMCS Utilized in PMCST Patients

Survival Differences Between In-hospital And Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest Complicated By Non Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock

Survival Differences Between In-hospital And Out-of-hospital Cardiac Arrest Complicated By Non Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock

(226) Comparison of In-Hospital Outcomes in Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock (AMICS) versus Non-AMICS Following ECPELLA

(226) Comparison of In-Hospital Outcomes in Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock (AMICS) versus Non-AMICS Following ECPELLA

Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock: Current Studies and Future Directions

Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock: Current Studies and Future Directions

Abstract 15122: Escalation Strategies, Management, and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock Patients Receiving Percutaneous Left Ventricular Support

Introduction: Despite well-established device selection algorithms, there remain wide variations in mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device utilization in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS). Further, there are limited national-level data on the contemporary practices of MCS device use. Methods: To evaluate national utilization patterns of MCS devices, we identified adult admissions (&gt;18 years) with AMI-CS from the HCUP-NIS data (2005-2017). Use of MCS devices including intraaortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVAD) (Impella/Tandem Heart), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) during hospitalization was identified. We evaluated trends in the initial MCS device used (IABP alone, pLVAD alone, or ≥2 MCS devices), device escalation, bridging to durable LVAD/heart transplantation, and predictors of in-hospital mortality and device escalation. Results: Among a total of 327,283 AMI-CS admissions in this 13-year period, 132,146 (40.2%) had an MCS device with information on timing of placement. IABP, pLVAD, ≥2 MCS, and ECMO devices were used as initial device in 120,928 (92.0%), 8,202 (6.2%), 2,305 (1.7%), and 711 (0.1%) admissions, respectively. Most admissions were maintained on initiated MCS device with 1-1.5% being escalated (IABP to pLVAD/ECMO, pLVAD to ECMO). The median time to escalation across all devices categories was 2 (IQR 1-4) days. Urban, medium, and large-sized hospitals, and acute multiorgan failure were significant independent predictors of MCS escalation. In admissions receiving MCS, escalation of MCS device was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.38-1.75; p &lt;0.001). Admissions receiving durable LVAD/heart transplantation increased over time in those initiated on pLVAD and ≥2 MCS devices resulting in lower in-hospital mortality. Conclusions: In this 13-year study, escalation from initial MCS device was associated with higher in-hospital mortality suggestive of higher acuity of illness. However, the observed increase in number of durable LVADs or heart transplantations may be an indication of the utility of these MCS devices as successful bridge therapies.

Mechanical circulatory support in refractory cardiogenic shock: retrospective register study

To define effectiveness and safety of MCS in patients with AMI and CS. Our study includes 47 patients with AMI and refractory CS, who were treated at the University Clinic of Cardiology of the Yevdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry from 2019 to 2022. Mortality and various complications were analyzed in patients with refractory CS, patients who received and did not receive mechanical circulatory support (intra-aortic balloon pump IABP, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ECMO). Mortality among patients with refractory CS was significantly lower in the subgroup of patients who received mechanical circulatory support devices (59% vs 93%; p=0.02). Moreover, reliability is achieved mainly due to patients in whom were VA-ECMO implanted (p=0.02), not IABP (p=0.16). VA-ECMO associated with reduced mortality and should be considered in patients with AMI and refractory CS. Further research is needed to select the optimal method of mechanical circulatory support in patients with CS.

Trends and outcomes of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock

Abstract Background Mortality for acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) remains high. Trends of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) use and outcomes as a function of ECMO requirement are not well described. Purpose To identify the trends and outcomes of VA-ECMO use for AMI-CS in the United States. Methods We used the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) and the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) to obtain our cohort. We identified patients with AMI-CS requiring VA-ECMO using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD 10 CM) and procedure (ICD 10-PCS) codes. We excluded patients with missing data on in-hospital mortality. Results During the study period (2016–2019), 2,005,607 records with myocardial infarction (ST-elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI] and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction [NSTEMI]) were identified (national estimate of 3,674,083 records), 127,939 records (6.4%) had concomitant CS (national estimate of 234,630 patients), and 3,469 records (national estimate of 6,365 records) (2.7%) received VA-ECMO for CS support. Impella and Intra-aortic balloon pump were used within the same admission in 34.5% and 38.1% of VA-ECMO cases, respectively. VA-ECMO use for AMI-CS significantly increased over the study period (from 2.3% in the first quarter of 2016 to 3.3% in the last quarter of 2019, p=0.001) (Figure 1). In unadjusted analysis, patients undergoing VA-ECMO for AMI-CS were more likely to be male, have hypertension, congestive heart failure, and coagulopathy, present with STEMI, and receive multivessel PCI. Other comorbid conditions including diabetes, atrial fibrillation, end-stage renal disease, and prior MI, CABG, and stroke were less common in the VA-ECMO cohort. Medicare patients were less likely to receive VA-ECMO (39.4% vs. 63.8%, p&amp;lt;0.001), whereas patients at large or teaching hospitals were more likely. Patients requiring VA-ECMO had higher in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and rates of complications (Table 1). Conclusion Utilization of VA-ECMO for AMI-CS is increasing, and in one out three patients, VA-ECMO is used in combination with other MCS devices. Patients with underlying medical comorbidities and Medicare are less likely to receive VA-ECMO. Critically ill patients requiring VA-ECMO for AMI-CS are more likely to present with STEMI and have high morbidity and mortality. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

Impact of Active and Historical Cancers on the Management and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicating Cardiogenic Shock.

There are limited data on the outcomes of acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) in patients with concomitant cancer. A retrospective cohort of adult AMI-CS admissions was identified from the National Inpatient Sample (2000-2017) and stratified by active cancer, historical cancer, and no cancer. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, use of coronary angiography, use of percutaneous coronary intervention, do-not-resuscitate status, palliative care use, hospitalization costs, and hospital length of stay. Of the 557,974 AMI-CS admissions during this 18-year period, active and historical cancers were noted in 14,826 (2.6%) and 27,073 (4.8%), respectively. From 2000 to 2017, there was a decline in active cancers (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.63-0.79]; P &lt; .001) and an increase in historical cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.89-2.25]; P &lt; .001). Compared with patients with no cancer, patients with active and historical cancer received less-frequent coronary angiography (57%, 67%, and 70%, respectively) and percutaneous coronary intervention (40%, 47%, and 49%%, respectively) and had higher do-not-resuscitate status (13%, 15%, 7%%, respectively) and palliative care use (12%, 10%, 6%%, respectively) (P &lt; .001). Compared with those without cancer, higher in-hospital mortality was found in admissions with active cancer (45.9% vs 37.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.24-1.34]; P &lt; .001) but not historical cancer (40.1% vs 37.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.98-1.04]; P = .39). AMI-CS admissions with cancer had a shorter hospitalization duration and lower costs (all P &lt; .001). Concomitant cancer was associated with less use of guideline-directed procedures. Active, but not historical, cancer was associated with higher mortality in patients with AMI-CS.

Mechanical Assist Devices in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Myocardial Infarction

In acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock is still one of the most feared complications. Although medical and interventional treatment of myocardial infarction improved significantly over the last decades mortality of cardiogenic shock patients remains on unacceptable high levels with 30-day mortality rates of 40-50 %. To date only an early revascularization of the culprit infarct lesion is the only intervention with proven survival benefit for patients. Active mechanical assist devices were introduced more than two decades ago to support left ventricular function as addition to medical treatment with inotropes and vasopressors. Yet, to date only insufficient date exists for these devices in cardiogenic shock patients and therefore no general recommendation can be given. This viewpoint gives an overview about the most used devices. The different mechanism of left ventricular support will be explained, and the current evidence discussed. Furthermore, ongoing randomized controlled trials are highlighted.

Impella versus Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objectives: Despite an increase in the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices for acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), there is currently no randomised data directly comparing the use of Impella and veno-arterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). Methods: Electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched in November 2021. Studies directly comparing the use of Impella (CP, 2.5 or 5.0) with VA-ECMO for AMI-CS were included. Studies examining other modalities of MCS, or other causes of cardiogenic shock, were excluded. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results: No randomised trials comparing VA-ECMO to Impella in patients with AMI-CS were identified. Six cohort studies (five retrospective and one prospective) were included for systematic review. All studies, including 7093 patients, were included in meta-analysis. Five studies reported in-hospital mortality, which, when pooled, was 42.4% in the Impella group versus 50.1% in the VA-ECMO group. Impella support for AMI-CS was associated with an 11% relative risk reduction in in-hospital mortality compared to VA-ECMO (risk ratio 0.89; 95% CI 0.83–0.96, I2 0%). Of the six studies, three studies also adjusted outcome measures via propensity-score matching with reported reductions in in-hospital mortality with Impella compared to VA-ECMO (risk ratio 0.72; 95% CI 0.59–0.86, I2 35%). Pooled analysis of five studies with 6- or 12-month mortality data reported a 14% risk reduction with Impella over the medium-to-long-term (risk ratio 0.86; 95% CI 0.76–0.97, I2 0%). Conclusions: There is no high-level evidence comparing VA-ECMO and Impella in AMI-CS. In available observation studies, MCS with Impella was associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital and medium-term mortality as compared to VA-ECMO.