Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock Following an Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 743-751 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Caceres ◽  
Fardad Esmailian ◽  
Jaime D. Moriguchi ◽  
Francisco A. Arabia ◽  
Lawrence S. Czer
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Circulatory Support

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Haurand ◽  
S Bueter ◽  
C Jung ◽  
M Kelm ◽  
R Westenfeld ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Apache Ii Score ◽  
Hemodynamic Parameters ◽  
Clinical Scores ◽  
Lactate Levels

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<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

scholarly journals Implementation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team and Clinical Outcomes (INOVA-SHOCK Registry): Observational and Retrospective Study (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Behnam Tehrani ◽  
Alexander Truesdell ◽  
Ramesh Singh ◽  
Charles Murphy ◽  
Patricia Saulino
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Heart Failure ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Acute Decompensated Heart Failure ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Decompensated Heart Failure ◽  
Circulatory Support

BACKGROUND The development and implementation of a Cardiogenic Shock initiative focused on increased disease awareness, early multidisciplinary team activation, rapid initiation of mechanical circulatory support, and hemodynamic-guided management and improvement of outcomes in cardiogenic shock. OBJECTIVE The objectives of this study are (1) to collect retrospective clinical outcomes for acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock and acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock, and compare current versus historical survival rates and clinical outcomes; (2) to evaluate Inova Heart and Vascular Institute site specific outcomes before and after initiation of the Cardiogenic Shock team on January 1, 2017; (3) to compare outcomes related to early implementation of mechanical circulatory support and hemodynamic-guided management versus historical controls; (4) to assess survival to discharge rate in patients receiving intervention from the designated shock team and (5) create a clinical archive of Cardiogenic Shock patient characteristics for future analysis and the support of translational research studies. METHODS This is an observational, retrospective, single center study. Retrospective and prospective data will be collected in patients treated at the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute with documented cardiogenic shock as a result of acute decompensated heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. This registry will include data from patients prior to and after the initiation of the multidisciplinary Cardiogenic Shock team on January 1, 2017. Clinical outcomes associated with early multidisciplinary team intervention will be analyzed. In the study group, all patients evaluated for documented cardiogenic shock (acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock, acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock) treated at the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute by the Cardiogenic Shock team will be included. An additional historical Inova Heart and Vascular Institute control group will be analyzed as a comparator. Means with standard deviations will be reported for outcomes. For categorical variables, frequencies and percentages will be presented. For continuous variables, the number of subjects, mean, standard deviation, minimum, 25th percentile, median, 75th percentile and maximum will be reported. Reported differences will include standard errors and 95% CI. RESULTS Preliminary data analysis for the year 2017 has been completed. Compared to a baseline 2016 survival rate of 47.0%, from 2017 to 2018, CS survival rates were increased to 57.9% (58/110) and 81.3% (81/140), respectively (P=.01 for both). Study data will continue to be collected until December 31, 2018. CONCLUSIONS The preliminary results of this study demonstrate that the INOVA SHOCK team approach to the treatment of Cardiogenic Shock with early team activation, rapid initiation of mechanical circulatory support, hemodynamic-guided management, and strict protocol adherence is associated with superior clinical outcomes: survival to discharge and overall survival when compared to 2015 and 2016 outcomes prior to Shock team initiation. What may limit the generalization of these results of this study to other populations are site specific; expertise of the team, strict algorithm adherence based on the INOVA SHOCK protocol, and staff commitment to timely team activation. Retrospective clinical outcomes (acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock, acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock) demonstrated an increase in current survival rates when compared to pre-Cardiogenic Shock team initiation, rapid team activation and diagnosis and timely utilization of mechanical circulatory support. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03378739; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03378739 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/701vstDGd)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document