Infarct-related Cardiogenic Shock Research Articles

The German-Austrian S3 Guideline "Cardiogenic Shock Due to Myocardial Infarction: Diagnosis, Monitoring, and Treatment".

Despite advances in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction with subsequent mortality reduction, which are mainly caused by the early timing of revascularization, cardiogenic shock still remains the leading cause of death with mortality rates still approaching 40 to 50%. Cardiogenic shock is characterized by a multiorgan dysfunction syndrome, often complicated by a systemic inflammatory response syndrome that affects the outcome more than the reduction of the cardiac contractile function. However, both European and American guidelines on myocardial infarction focus on interventional or surgical aspects only. Therefore, experts from eight German and Austrian specialty societies including the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery published the German-Austrian S3 guideline "cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction: diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment" to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of infarction-related cardiogenic shock in 2010 covering the topics of early revascularization, revascularization techniques, intensive care unit treatment including ventilation, transfusion regimens, adjunctive medical therapy, and mechanical support devices. Within the last 3 years, this guideline was updated as some major recommendations were outdated, or new evidence had been found. This review will therefore outline the management of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction according to the updated guideline with a major focus on evidence-based recommendations which have been found relevant for cardiac surgery.

Hemodynamic and metabolic recovery in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock is more rapid among patients presenting with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BackgroundMost studies in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) include patients presenting with and without out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The aim was to compare OHCA and non-OHCA AMICS patients in terms of hemodynamics, management in the intensive care unit (ICU) and outcome.MethodsFrom a cohort corresponding to two thirds of the Danish population, all patients with AMICS admitted from 2010–2017 were individually identified through patient records.ResultsA total of 1716 AMICS patients were identified of which 723 (42%) presented with OHCA. A total of 1532 patients survived to ICU admission. At the time of ICU arrival, there were no differences between OHCA and non-OHCA AMICS patients in variables commonly used in the AMICS definition (mean arterial pressure (MAP) (72mmHg vs 70mmHg, p = 0.12), lactate (4.3mmol/L vs 4.0mmol/L, p = 0.09) and cardiac output (CO) (4.6L/min vs 4.4L/min, p = 0.30)) were observed. However, during the initial days of ICU treatment OHCA patients had a higher MAP despite a lower need for vasoactive drugs, higher CO, SVO2 and lactate clearance compared to non-OHCA patients (p<0.05 for all). In multivariable analysis outcome was similar but cause of death differed significantly with hypoxic brain injury being leading cause in OHCA and cardiac failure in non-OHCA AMICS patients.ConclusionOHCA and non-OHCA AMICS patients initially have comparable metabolic and hemodynamic profiles, but marked differences develop between the groups during the first days of ICU treatment. Thus, pooling of OHCA and non-OHCA patients as one clinical entity in studies should be done with caution.

Impact of chronic total occlusion and revascularization strategy in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock: A subanalysis of the culprit-shock trial

The impact of coronary artery chronic total occlusion (CTO) and its management with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the setting of myocardial infarction (MI) related cardiogenic shock (CS) remains unclear. This is a pre-specified analysis from the culprit-lesion-only PCI vs multivessel PCI in CS (CULPRIT-SHOCK) trial which randomized patients presenting with MI and multivessel disease complicated by CS to a culprit-lesion-only or immediate multivessel PCI strategy. CTO was defined by central core-laboratory evaluation. The independent associations between the presence of CTO and adverse outcomes at 30 days and 1 year were assessed using multivariate logistics models. A noninfarct related CTO was present in 157 of 667 (23.5%) analyzed patients. Patients presenting with CTO had more frequent diabetes mellitus or prior PCI but less frequently presented with ST segment elevation MI as index event. The presence of CTO was associated with higher rate of death at 30 days (adjusted Odds ratio 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-2.60). Rate of death at 1 year was also increased but did not reach statistical significance (adjusted Odds ratio 1.62; 95%CI 0.99-2.66). Compare to immediate multivessel PCI, a strategy of culprit-lesion-only PCI was associated with lower rates of death or renal replacement therapy at 30 days in patients with and without CTO (Odds ratio 0.79 95%CI 0.42-1.49 and Odds ratio 0.67 95%CI 0.48-0.96, respectively), without significant interaction (P = .68). In patients with MI-related CS and multivessel disease, the presence of CTO is associated with adverse outcomes while a strategy of culprit-lesion-only PCI seems beneficial regardless of the presence of CTO.

Clinical Outcomes According to ECG Presentations in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock in the Culprit Lesion Only PCI vs Multivessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock Trial

The impact of ECG presentations of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in cardiogenic shock is unknown. In myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock, is there a difference in the outcomes and effect of revascularization strategies between non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and left bundle branch block myocardial infarction (LBBBMI) vsST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)? Cardiogenic shock patients from the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial with NSTEMI or LBBBMI were compared with STEMI patients for 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality. The interaction between ECG presentation and the effect of revascularization strategies on outcomes was evaluated. Of 665 cardiogenic shock patients analyzed, 55.9%demonstrated STEMI, 29.3%demonstrated NSTEMI, and 14.7%demonstrated LBBBMI. Patients differed in mean age (68.0 years in STEMI patients, 71.0 years in NSTEMI patients, and 73.5 years in LBBBMI patients; P= .015), cardiovascular risk factors, and angiographic severity. No difference was found in the 30-day risk of death between NSTEMI and STEMI patients (48.7%vs43.0%; adjusted OR [aOR], 1.05; 95%CI, 0.66-1.67; P= .85), nor between LBBBMI and STEMI patients (59.2%vs43.0%; aOR, 1.31; 95%CI, 0.73-2.34; P= .36). Although the univariate risk of death by 1 year was higher in NSTEMI and LBBBMI patients compared with STEMI patients, ECG presentation was not an independent risk factor of mortality after adjustment (NSTEMI vsSTEMI: 56.4%vs46.8%; aOR, 1.21; 95%CI, 0.76-1.92; P= .42; LBBBMI vsSTEMI: 69.4%vs46.8%; aOR, 1.59; 95%CI, 0.89-2.84; P= .12). ECG presentation did not modify the effect of the revascularization strategy on 30-day and 1-year mortality (P= .91 and P= .97 for interaction). In patients with cardiogenic shock, NSTEMI and LBBBMI presentations reflect higher-risk profiles than STEMI presentations, but are not independent risk factors of mortality. ECG presentations did not modify the treatment effect, supporting culprit-lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention as the preferred strategy across the AMI spectrum.

Mechanical circulatory support with impella in patients with non-acute myocardial infarction related cardiogenic shock

Abstract Background Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices such as the Impella pump, are used to hemodynamically stabilize patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) caused by acute myocardial infarction (AMI) until cardiac function has recovered after revascularization. Whether Impella mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is effective in stabilizing patients with CS not caused by AMI has so far not been thoroughly investigated. Purpose The aim of this study is to analyze whether MCS with Impella is effective to stabilize patients with non-AMI related CS compared to patients with AMI related CS. Method We retrospectively analyzed 106 patients with CS and Impella support in the years from 2011 to 2018. Efficacy to stabilize the patient was assessed by laboratory values such as lactate, hemodynamic parameters and clinical scores. The difference in mortality was calculated with the Log-Rank-Test, comparing Kaplan-Meier curves. Results 36 patients suffered from non-AMI CS and in 70 patients CS was caused by AMI. Regarding the clinical scores and hemodynamic parameters, both groups were severely ill, with no significant difference in APACHE II score, with a mean score of 17.9 in the non-AMI group compared to 20.5 in the AMI-group (p=0.103), the SOFA score (mean score of 6.3 in non-AMI group vs 6.8 in AMI group, p=0.467) and cardiac index (mean CI of 1.9 l/min/m2 in non-AMI group vs 2.2 l/min/m2 in AMI group, p=0.176). There was a comparable mean decrease in lactate levels in both groups 48 hours after initiation of MCS, from initially 4.1 mmol/l to 1.7 mmol/l (p&amp;lt;0.001) in the non-AMI group and from initially 3.6 mmol/l to 2.2 mmol/l (p=0.025) in the AMI group. The non-ACS group exhibited a trend of lower mortality compared to the AMI group, with 47% in the non-AMI group and 57% in the AMI group (p=0.067). In multivariate analysis, age, lactate levels, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, low platelets and higher doses of inotropes and vasopressors were independent predictors for mortality. An upgrade to LVAD was performed for 22% of the non-AMI group and for 6% of the AMI group (p=0.020). Conclusion Impella support is effective to hemodynamically stabilize patients with non-AMI related CS. Therefore, MCS can be used as bridge to recovery or enables further treatment options as upgrade to longterm mechanical support devices. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Diabetes mellitus, revascularization and outcomes in elderly patients with myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock.

BackgroundThe prognostic role of diabetes mellitus (DM) in elderly patients with myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (MI-CS) remains controversial. Little information exists about the impact of intensive cardiac care unit (ICCU) and revascularization on outcomes of elderly patients with MI-CS. We aimed to assess the prognostic impact of DM according to age in patients with MI-CS, and to analyze the impact ICCU management and revascularization on in-hospital mortality in MI-CS patients at older ages.MethodsDischarge episodes with diagnosis of CS associated with MI were selected from the Spanish National Health System's Basic Data Set. Centers were classified according to their availability of ICCU. Main outcome measured was in-hospital mortality.ResultsA total of 23, 590 episodes of MI-CS were identified, of whom 12, 447 (52.8%) were in patients aged ≥ 75 years. The impact of DM on in-hospital mortality was different among age subgroups. While in younger patients, DM was associated to a higher mortality risk (0.52 vs. 0.47, OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.06-1.18, χ2 < 0.001), this association became non-significant in older patients (0.76 vs. 0.81, χ2 = 0.09). Adjusted mortality rate of MI-CS aged ≥ 75 years was lower in patients admitted to hospitals with ICCU (adjusted mortality rate: 74.2% vs. 77.7%, P < 0.001) and in patients undergoing revascularization (74.9% vs. 77.3%, P < 0.001).ConclusionsPrognostic impact of DM in patients with MI-CS was different according to age, with a significantly lower impact at older ages. The availability of ICCU and revascularization were associated with better outcomes in these complex patients.

Incidence of acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock during corona virus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic.

AimsThe hospitalization of patients with MI has decreased during global lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Whether this decrease is associated with more severe MI, e.g. MI-CS, is unknown. We aimed to examine the association of Corona virus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and incidence of acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (MI-CS).MethodsOn March 11, 2020, the Danish government announced national lock-down. Using Danish nationwide registries, we identified patients hospitalized with MI-CS. Incidence rates (IR) and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were used to compare MI-CS before and after March 11 in 2015–2019 and in 2020.ResultsWe identified 11,769 patients with MI of whom 696 (5.9%) had cardiogenic shock in 2015–2019. In 2020, 2132 MI patients were identified of whom 119 had cardiogenic shock (5.6%). The IR per 100,000 person years before March 11 in 2015–2019 was 9.2 (95% CI: 8.3–10.2) and after 8.9 (95% CI: 8.0–9.9). In 2020, the IR was 7.5 (95% CI: 5.8–9.7) before March 11 and 7.7 (95% CI: 6.0–9.9) after. The IRRs comparing the 2020-period with the 2015–2019 period before and after March 11 (lockdown) were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.59–1.12) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.57–1.32), respectively. The IRR comparing the 2020-period during and before lockdown was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.74–1.41). No difference in 7-day mortality or in-hospital management was observed between study periods.ConclusionWe could not identify a significant association of the national lockdown on the incidence of MI-CS, along with similar in-hospital management and mortality in patients with MI-CS.

Short version of the 2nd edition of the German-Austrian S3 guidelines "Cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction-Diagnosis, monitoring and treatment"

The present guidelines ( http://leitlinien.net ) focus exclusively on cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction (infarction-related cardiogenic shock, ICS). The cardiological/cardiac surgical and the intensive care medicine strategies dealt with in these guidelines are essential to the successful treatment and survival of patients with ICS; however, both European and American guidelines on myocardial infarction and heart failure and also position papers on cardiogenic shock focused mainly on cardiological aspects. Evidence on the diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of ICS was collected and recommendations compiled in anominal group process by delegates of the German Cardiac Society (DGK), the German Society for Medical Intensive Care Medicine and Emergency Medicine (DGIIN), the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (DGTHG), the German Society for Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI), the Austrian Society for Internal and General Intensive Care Medicine (ÖGIAIM), the Austrian Cardiology Society (ÖKG), the German Society for Prevention and Rehabilitation of Cardiovascular Diseases (DGPR) and the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI), under the auspices of the Working Group of the Association of Medical Scientific Societies in Germany (AWMF). If only poor evidence on ICS was available, general study results on intensive care patients were inspected and presented in order to enable analogue conclusions. Atotal of 95recommendations, including 2statements were compiled and based on these 7 algorithms with defined instructions on the course of treatment.

Trends in first-time hospitalization, management, and short-term mortality in acute myocardial infarction–related cardiogenic shock from 2005 to 2017: A nationwide cohort study

Cardiogenic shock remains the leading cause of in-hospital death in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Because of temporary changes in management of cardiogenic shock with widespread implementation of early revascularization along with increasing attention to the use of mechanical circulatory devices, complete and longitudinal data are important in this subject. The objective of this study was to examine temporal trends of first-time hospitalization, management, and short-term mortality for patients with AMI-related cardiogenic shock (AMICS). Using nationwide medical registries, we identified patients hospitalized with first-time AMI and cardiogenic shock from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2017. We calculated annual incidence proportions of AMICS. Thirty-day mortality was estimated with use of Kaplan-Meier estimator comparing AMICS and AMI-only patients. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess mortality rate ratios. We included 101,834 AMI patients of whom 7,040 (7%) had AMICS. The median age was 72 (interquartile range: 62-80) for AMICS and 69 (interquartile range: 58-79) for AMI-only patients. The gender composition was similar between AMICS and AMI-only patients (male: 64% vs 63%). The annual incidence proportion of AMICS decreased slightly over time (2005: 7.0% vs 2017: 6.1%, P for trend < .0001). In AMICS, use of coronary angiography increased between 2005 and 2017 from 48% to 71%, as did use of left ventricular assist device (1% vs 10%) and norepinephrine (30% to 70%). In contrast, use of intra-aortic balloon pump (14% vs 1%) and dopamine (34% vs 20%) decreased. Thirty-day mortality for AMICS patients was 60% (95% CI: 59-61) and substantially higher than the 8% (95% CI: 7.8-8.2) for AMI-only patients (mortality rate ratio: 11.4, 95% CI: 10.9-11.8). Over time, the mortality decreased after AMICS (2005: 68% to 2017: 57%, P for temporal change in adjusted analysis < .0001). We observed a slight decrease in AMICS hospitalization over time with changing practice patterns. Thirty-day mortality was markedly higher for patients with AMICS compared with AMI only, yet our results suggest improved 30-day survival over time after AMICS.

Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device vs. Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for Hemodynamic Support in Acute Myocardial Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock and Coexistent Atrial Fibrillation: A Nationwide Propensity-Matched Analysis'

Patients suffering an acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) may experience clinical deterioration with concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF). Recent data suggest that percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) provide superior hemodynamic support over intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in AMICS. In patients with AF+AMICS, however, outcomes data comparing these two devices remain limited. Using the National Inpatient Sample datasets (2008-2014) and a propensity-score matched analysis, we compared the outcomes of AMICS+AF hospitalized patients undergoing PCI with pVAD vs. IABP support. A total of 12,842 AMICS+AF patients were identified (pVAD=468, IABP=12,374). The matched groups (pVAD=443, IABP=443) were comparable in terms of mean age (70.3±12.0vs. 70.4±11.0yrs, p=0.92). The utilization of pVAD was higher in whites but lower in Medicare/Medicaid beneficiaries as compared to IABP. The pVAD group demonstrated higher rates of obesity (13.6% vs. 7.8%, p=0.006) and dyslipidemia (48.4% vs. 41.8%, p=0.05). There was no difference in the in-hospital mortality (40.5% vs. 36.8%, p=0.25); however, pVAD group had a lower incidence of post-procedural MI and higher incidences of stroke (7.8% vs. 4.4%, p=0.03), hemorrhage (5.6% vs. 2.3%, p=0.01), discharges to home health care (13.5% vs. 10.1%, p<0.001) and to other facilities (29.1% vs. 24.9%, p<0.001) as compared to IABP group. There was no difference between the groups in terms of mean length of stay or hospital charges. All-cause inpatient mortality was similar in AMICS+AF patients undergoing PCI who were treated with either pVAD or IABP. The pVAD group, however, experienced more complications while consuming greater healthcare resources.

Vasopressors and Inotropes in Acute Myocardial Infarction Related Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Vasopressors and inotropes are routinely used in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) related cardiogenic shock (CS) to improve hemodynamics. We aimed to investigate the effect of routinely used vasopressor and inotropes on mortality in AMI related CS. A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was performed up to 20 February 2019. Randomized and observational studies reporting mortality of AMI related CS patients were included. At least one group should have received the vasopressor/inotrope compared with a control group not exposed to the vasopressor/inotrope. Exclusion criteria were case reports, correspondence and studies including only post-cardiac surgery patients. In total, 19 studies (6 RCTs) were included, comprising 2478 CS patients. The overall quality of evidence was graded low. Treatment with adrenaline, noradrenaline, vasopressin, milrinone, levosimendan, dobutamine or dopamine was not associated with a difference in mortality between therapy and control group. We found a trend toward better outcome with levosimendan, compared with control (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47–1.00). In conclusion, we found insufficient evidence that routinely used vasopressors and inotropes are associated with reduced mortality in patients with AMI related CS. Considering the limited evidence, this study emphasizes the need for randomized trials with appropriate endpoints and methodology.

Revascularization in cardiogenic shock.

Approximately 10% of patients with acute myocardial infarction develop cardiogenic shock. Randomized studies have shown asignificant improvement in survival with early revascularization, which now represents the most important cornerstone in the treatment of infarct-related cardiogenic shock. In the vast majority of cases, this is achieved by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In cases of complex coronary anatomy or mechanical complications, the Heart Team should be consulted promptly. The randomized CULPRIT-SHOCK study showed asurvival advantage for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and apercutaneous revascularization strategy who were treated by culprit-lesion-only PCI compared with immediate multivessel PCI. There are currently few data on anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in cardiogenic shock as well as on active mechanical circulatory support in this setting.

Cardiogenic shock: role of invasive cardiology.

Early revascularization significantly improved the outcome of patients with cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Nevertheless, the mortality remains substantial, ranging between 40 and 50% after 30 days. The present review summarizes the current evidence regarding revascularization strategies, vascular access site and concomitant antiplatelet and antithrombotic treatment in infarct-related cardiogenic shock. On the basis of the SHOCK trial, early revascularization is the most relevant procedure to improve the outcome of patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock. The majority of these patients present with multivessel coronary disease. The randomized CULPRIT-SHOCK trial showed that in the emergency setting, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) should be confined to the culprit lesion. Regarding vascular access site, no data derived from randomized controlled trials in cardiogenic shock are available. Emergency coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is nowadays rarely performed in cardiogenic shock with rates less than 5% but is still a treatment option if coronary anatomy is not amenable to PCI. Regarding antiplatelet treatment, a randomized trial testing the intravenous P2Y12 inhibitor cangrelor versus an oral P2Y12 inhibitor in infarct-related cardiogenic shock is currently being performed. Early revascularization is the cornerstone of treatment of infarct-related cardiogenic shock and should be confined to the culprit lesion in the emergency setting.

Influence of Timing and Predicted Risk on Mortality in Impella-Treated Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock Patients.

Background: In-hospital mortality in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) remains high. The only adequately powered randomized trial showed no benefit of routine use of the intra-aortic balloon pump in AMI-CS. We compared individually predicted mortality using CardShock- and IABP-Shock II-scores in AMI-CS patients treated with an Impella microaxial pump, who met the IABP-Shock II-trials inclusion/exclusion criteria, to observed mortality on circulatory support in order to determine whether standardized use of an Impella microaxial flow-pump in AMI-CS is associated with lower than predicted mortality rates and whether timing of implantation or selecting patients based on predicted risk is meaningful.Methods and Results: We analyzed data from 166 consecutive Impella-treated AMI-CS patients meeting the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the IABP-Shock II-trial (age 64 ± 11 years). Thirty-nine percentage of 64 patients had been resuscitated before Impella implantation. Overall 30-day mortality was 42%. Mortality was higher in resuscitated patients (50 vs. 36%, p = 0.0452) and when Impella was implanted post-PCI (Impella-pre-PCI: 28%, Impella-post-PCI: 51%, p = 0.0039). While in both score systems there was no significant difference between predicted and observed overall 30-day mortality, predicted mortality was significantly higher than observed mortality on Impella support only for individuals with highest predicted risk based on CardShock score (predicted 77 vs. observed 51%, p = 0.025).Conclusions: Our retrospective analysis suggests that the use of the Impella microaxial pump may be effective in selected cases of high risk patients with AMI-CS.Condensed abstract: Mortality is high in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock despite rapid revascularization. Haemodynamic support with an intraortic balloon pump does not reduce mortality. In this retrospective registry including 166 consecutive IABP-Shock II-eligible cardiogenic shock patients in four dedicated shock centers, observed mortality on circulatory support with an Impella was significantly lower than predicted in patients with highest mortality risk. Implantation prior to PCI in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock seemed to be associated with lower mortality than implantation post PCI.

Frequency and Impact of Bleeding on Outcome in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine frequency, associated factors, and impact of bleeding in infarct-related cardiogenic shock. BackgroundEarly revascularization is associated with improved survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. On the downside, invasive treatment and accompanying antithrombotic therapies are associated with an increased bleeding risk. Prospective data assessing the incidence, severity, risk factors, and prognostic implication of bleeding in patients with cardiogenic shock are scarce. MethodsAs a pre-defined subanalysis of the CULPRIT-SHOCK (PCI Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock) randomized trial, we examined distribution of bleeding events in 684 patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock and compared patients with any bleeding to those without. ResultsA total of 21.5% patients experienced at least 1 bleeding event until 30 days after randomization. The vast majority of bleeding (57%) occurred within the first 2 days of hospitalization. Patients with bleeding had prolonged catecholamine treatment and mechanical ventilation and there was a significant association with sepsis, peripheral ischemic complications, new atrial fibrillation, and ventricular fibrillation. In multivariable analysis, bleeding was associated with a significantly higher mortality (hazard ratio: 2.11; 95% confidence interval: 1.63 to 2.75; p < 0.0001). Treatment with active mechanical support by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or Impella emerged as the major risk factor for bleeding. ConclusionsRisk of bleeding in infarct-related cardiogenic shock is high and associated with increased mortality.

Prognostic Value of SYNTAX Score in Patients With Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Insights From the CULPRIT-SHOCK Trial

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the prognostic value of the SYNTAX (SYNergy between PCI with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery) scores in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for multivessel coronary disease with infarct-related cardiogenic shock (CS). BackgroundThe prognostic value of the SYNTAX score in this high-risk setting remains unclear. MethodsThe CULPRIT-SHOCK (Culprit Lesion Only PCI versus Multivessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock) trial was an international, open-label trial, where patients presenting with infarct-related CS and multivessel disease were randomized to a culprit-lesion-only or an immediate multivessel PCI strategy. Baseline SYNTAX score was assessed by a central core laboratory and categorized as low SYNTAX score (SS ≤22), intermediate SYNTAX score (22<SS≤32) and high SYNTAX score (SS>32). Adjudicated endpoints of interest were the 30-day risk of death or renal replacement therapy (RRT) and 1-year death. Associations between baseline SYNTAX score and outcomes were assessed using multivariate logistic regression. ResultsPre-PCI SYNTAX score was available in 624 patients, of whom 263 (42.1%), 207 (33.2%) and 154 (24.7%) presented with low, intermediate and high SYNTAX score, respectively. A stepwise increase in the incidence of adverse events was observed from low to intermediate and high SYNTAX score for the 30-day risk of death or RRT and the 1-year risk of death (p < 0.001, for all). After multiple adjustments, intermediate and high SYNTAX score remained strongly associated with 30-day risk of death or renal replacement therapy and 1-year risk of all-cause death. There was no significant interaction between SYNTAX score and the coronary revascularization strategy for any outcomes. ConclusionsIn patients presenting with multivessel disease and infarct-related CS, the SYNTAX score was strongly associated with 30-day death or RRT and 1-year mortality.

Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Myocardial Infarction

In patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock remains the most common cause of death. Multidisciplinary care in a specialized center and guideline-compliant treatment of cardiogenic shock are crucial for the survival and prognosis of affected patients. Hemodynamic monitoring and stabilization by volume expansion, vasopressors and inotropes represent initial steps in the management of patients with cardiogenic shock. Nevertheless, early revascularization of the culprit-lesion is proved to be the most important treatment modality. Although the use of active mechanical circulatory support appears to be a promising therapeutic concept to improve clinical outcome in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock, in the few previous randomized trials mechanical circulatory support failed to show beneficial effects on short-term and long-term survival.

Highlights From the Circulation Family of Journals.

Highlights From the Circulation Family of Journals.

Selenoprotein P in Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock.

Reperfusion strategies in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) may result in ischemia reperfusion injury characterized by increased oxidative stress, inflammation, and ultimately death of myocardial tissue which may be of particular importance in infarct-related cardiogenic shock (CS). Many anti-oxidative and immune regulatory processes depend on selenium which in large proportions is bound to circulating selenoprotein P (SelP). Individual SelP patterns may therefore be associated with inflammatory response and possibly mortality in patients with CS post AMI. In the randomized Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in cardiogenic Shock II (IABP-SHOCK II)-trial, 600 patients with CS complicating AMI were assigned to therapy with or without IABP. In a predefined biomarker substudy of 147 patients, we analyzed SelP levels 1 and 3 days following randomization. Samples were compared with healthy controls and associations with the unspecific inflammatory marker C-reactive protein (CRP) were analyzed. Compared with controls SelP levels in patients with infarct-related CS were markedly higher (2.7-fold at day 1 and 5.7-fold at day 3 following AMI, all P < 0.001). Thirty-day mortality was significantly higher in patients with SelP levels above the 75th percentile at day 3 following AMI (26% vs. 46%, P = 0.045). SelP was significantly proportionally correlated with CRP 1 (R = 0.762, P < 0.0001) and 3 days (R = 0.777 P < 0.0001) following AMI. SelP levels are significantly increased post AMI with CS. Higher SelP levels are associated with increased CRP levels indicative for inflammatory processes. Future studies should focus on the characterization of SelP profiles following AMI and the identification of pathomechanisms affected by SelP.

The predictive value of age, creatinine, ejection fraction score for in-hospital mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock.

The aim of the present study was to assess the predictive value of the age, creatinine, ejection fraction score for in-hospital mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to ST-elevation myocardial infarction. This single-center, retrospective study was based on a comprehensive analysis of the hospital records of 318 consecutive cardiogenic shock patients. The age, creatinine, ejection fraction score was calculated for each patient using the equation of age/ejection fraction +1 if creatinine level is >2 mg/dl. The study population was stratified into tertiles: T1, T2, and T3, based on the age, creatinine, ejection fraction score. The primary endpoint of the study was the incidence of in-hospital mortality. The incidence of in-hospital mortality was significantly greater in patients with a high age, creatinine, ejection fraction score (T3 group) compared with the intermediate (T2 group) or the low score group (T1 group) [86.8% (n = 92 patients) vs. 57.5% (n = 61 patients) vs. 34.9% (n = 37 patients), respectively; P < 0.05 for each]. In multivariable models, after adjusting for all covariables, the risk of in-hospital mortality was 3.21 (95% confidence interval: 2.29-4.58) for patients allocated to the T3 group. The optimal cutoff for the age, creatinine, ejection fraction score for in-hospital mortality was 2.24, with a sensitivity of 74% and a specificity of 77%. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that has demonstrated a prognostic value of the age, creatinine, ejection fraction score in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock.