Cardiogenic shock — the current state of the problem
https://doi.org/10.15829/1560-4071-2019-10-126-136
Abstract
Today the incidence of cardiogenic shock (CS) among the patients with myocardial infarction (MI) is on average in 7-8%. Despite the fact that CS is not the most frequent complication of MI, it is the most common cause of death in this disease. The standard and new perspective treatment approaches are being reviewed in this article with emphasis on the method of mechanical circulatory support (MCS). According to a data from large registries, a new approach of utilization of contemporary MCS devices has demonstrated its efficiency in reducing mortality in the patients with MI complicated by CS. At the present stage, universal treatment protocols for CS are being designed. The central element of these protocols is MCS with the use of contemporary devices, implemented according to a scheme that has demonstrated its effectiveness.
Keywords
Supporting agencies: The authors are grateful to the residents of the emergency cardiology department of the National Medical Research Center of Cardiology: Merkulova I. A., Avetisyan E. A.
About the Authors
S. A. Boytsov
National Medical Research Center of Cardiology
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: not
Russian Federation
Moscow
Competing Interests: not
R. S. Akchurin
National Medical Research Center of Cardiology
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: not
Russian Federation
Moscow
Competing Interests: not
D. V. Pevzner
National Medical Research Center of Cardiology
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: not
Russian Federation
Moscow
Competing Interests: not
R. M. Shakhnovich
National Medical Research Center of Cardiology
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: not
Russian Federation
Moscow
Competing Interests: not
M. Ya. Ruda
National Medical Research Center of Cardiology
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: not
Russian Federation
Moscow
Competing Interests: not
References
1. Harjola VP1, Lassus J, Sionis A, et al. Clinical picture and risk prediction of short-term mortality in cardiogenic shock. European Journal of Heart Failure. 2015;17(5):501–509. DOI:10.1002/ejhf.260
2. Anderson ML, Peterson ED, Peng SA, et al. Differences in the Profile, Treatment, and Prognosis of Patients With Cardiogenic Shock by Myocardial Infarction Classification. A Report From NCDR. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. 2013;6:708-715. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000262
3. Goldberg RJ, Spencer FA, Gore JM, et al. Thirty-Year Trends (1975 to 2005) in the Magnitude of, Management of, and Hospital Death Rates Associated With Cardiogenic Shock in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Population-Based Perspective. Circulation. 2009;119(9):1211–1219. DOI:10.1161/circulationaha.108.814947
4. Hunziker L, Radovanovic D, Jeger R, et al. Twenty-Year Trends in the Incidence and Outcome of Cardiogenic Shock in AMIS Plus Registry. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2019;12(4):1-9. DOI:10.1161/circinterventions.118.007293
5. Rathod KS, Koganti S, Iqbal MB, et al. Contemporary trends in cardiogenic shock: Incidence, intra-aortic balloon pump utilisation and outcomes from the London Heart Attack Group. European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care. 2017;7(1):16–27. DOI:10.1177/2048872617741735
6. Rathod KS, Koganti S, Iqbal MB, et al. Contemporary trends in cardiogenic shock: Incidence, intra-aortic balloon pump utilisation and outcomes from the London Heart Attack Group. European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care. 2017;7(1):16–27. DOI:10.1177/2048872617741735
7. Hosseiny DA, Moloi S, Chandrasekhar J, et al. Mortality pattern and cause of death in a long-term follow-up of patients with STEMI treated with primary PCI. Open Heart. 2016;3(1):e000405. DOI:10.1136/openhrt-2016-000405
8. Goldberg RJ, Samad NA, Yarzebski J, et al. Temporal Trends in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction. New England Journal of Medicine. 2019;340(15):1162–1168. DOI:10.1056/nejm199904153401504
9. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Godfrey E, et al. SHould We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic ShocK: An international randomized trial of emergency PTCA/CABG—trial design. American Heart Journal. 1999;137(2):313–321. DOI:10.1053/hj.1999.v137.95352
10. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann F‐J, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367:1287–1296. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1208410.
11. Ouweneel DM, Eriksen E, Sjauw KD, et al. Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(3):278-287. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.022.
12. Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, et al. A Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of a Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping for Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock Caused by Myocardial Infarction. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2008;52(19):1584–1588. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.065
13. O’Neill WW, Grines C, Schreiber T, et al. Analysis of outcomes for 15,259 US patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMICS) supported with the Impella® device. American Heart Journal. 2018;202:33-38. DOI:10.1016/j.ahj.2018.03.024
14. O’Neil WW, Schreiber T, Wohns DHW, et al. The Current Use of Impella® 2.5 in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: Results from the USpella Registry. Journal of Interventional Cardiology. 2013;27(1):1–11. DOI:10.1111/joic.12080
15. Basir MB, Schreiber TL, Grines CL, et al. Effect of Early Initiation of Mechanical Circulatory Support on Survival in Cardiogenic Shock. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2017;119(6):845–851. DOI:10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.11.037
16. Loehn T, O’Neill WW, Lange B, et al. Long term survival after early unloading with Impella® CP in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care. 2018;204887261881506:1-9. DOI:10.1177/2048872618815063
17. Basir MB, Schreiber T, Dixon S, et al. Feasibility of early mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: The Detroit cardiogenic shock initiative. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2017;91(3):454–461. DOI:10.1002/ccd.27427
18. Tehrani B, Truesdell A, Singh R, et al. Implementation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team and Clinical Outcomes (INOVA-SHOCK Registry): Observational and Retrospective Study. JMIR Res Protoc. 2018;7(6):e160. DOI:10.2196/resprot.9761
19. Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. European Heart Journal. 2019;40:87–165. DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394
20. Sanborn TA, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. SHOCK Investigators. Correlates of one-year survival inpatients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: angiographic findings from the SHOCK trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:1373–1379. DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(03)01051-9.
21. Alexander JH, Reynolds HR, Stebbins AL, et al. Effect of tilarginine acetate in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: the TRIUMPH randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;297:1657–1666. DOI: 10.1001/jama.297.15.joc70035
22. Mehta RH, Ou FS, Peterson ED, et al. American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Database Registry Investigators. Clinical significance of post-procedural TIMI flow in patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:56–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2008.10.006.
23. Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. PCI Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock. 2017;377(25):2419-2432. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1710261.
24. Kolte D, Sardar P, Khera S, et al. Culprit vessel–only versus multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment–elevation myocardial
25. infarction: a collaborative meta-analysis. Circulation: Cardiovascular Intervention. 2017;10:005582. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.005582.
26. Webb JG, Sanborn TA, Sleeper LA, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock in the SHOCK Trial Registry. American Heart Journal. 2001;141(6):964–970. DOI:10.1067/mhj.2001.115294
27. Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group, 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST- segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST- segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). European Heart Journal. 2018;39(2):119–177. DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx393.
28. Mueller H, Ayres SM, Gregory JJ, et al. Hemodynamics, coronary blood flow, and myocardial metabolism in coronary shock; response to l-norepinephrine and isoproterenol. The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 1970;49:1885–902. DOI: 10.1172/JCI106408
29. Mueller H, Ayres SM, Giannelli S, et al. Effect of isoproterenol, l-norepinephrine, and intraaortic counterpulsation on hemodynamics and myocardial metabolism in shock following acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1972;45(2):335-351. DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.45.2.335
30. Kantrowitz A, Tjonneland S, Freed PS, et al. Initial clinical experience with intraaortic balloon pumping in cardiogenic shock. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1968;203(2):135–40. PMID: 5694059
31. Van de Werf F, Bax J, Betriu A, et al. Management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with persistent ST-segment elevation: the Task Force on the Management of ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction of the European Society of Cardiology. European Heart Journal. 2009;29(23):2909-45. DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/sup013
32. Mandawat, A, Rao SV. Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiogenic Shock. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2017;10(5):1-13. DOI:10.1161/circinterventions.116.004337
33. Thiele H, Jobs A, Ouweneel DM, Henriques JPS, et al. Percutaneous short-term active mechanical support devices in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. European Heart Journal. 2017;38(47):3523–3531. DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx363
34. den Uil CA, Daemen J, Lenzen MJ, et al. Pulsatile iVAC 2L circulatory support in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. EuroIntervention. 2017;12(14):1689-1696. DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00371.
35. Van Mieghem NM, Daemen J, Lenzen MJ, et al. The PulseCath iVAC 2L® left ventricular assist device: conversion to a percutaneous transfemoral approach. EuroIntervention. 2015;11(7):835-9. DOI: 10.4244/EIJV11I7A168.
36. Niclauss L, Segesser LK. PulseCath iVAC 3LTM hemodynamic performance for simple assisted flow. Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery. 2011;12(6):912-3. DOI: 10.1510/icvts.2010.264051.
37. Ouweneel DM, Schotborgh JV, Limpens J, et al. Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Medicine. 2016;42(12):1922–1934. DOI:10.1007/s00134-016-4536-8
38. Burkhoff D, Sayer G, Doshi D, et al. Hemodynamics of Mechanical Circulatory Support. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2015;66(23):2663–2674. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.017
39. Pappalardo F, Schulte C, Pieri M, et al. Concomitant implantation of Impella® on top of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may improve survival of patients with cardiogenic shock. European Journal of Heart Failure. 2016;19(3):404–412. DOI:10.1002/ejhf.668
40. Patel SM, Lipinski J, Al-Kindi SG, et al. Simultaneous Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and Percutaneous Left Ventricular Decompression Therapy with Impella® Is Associated with Improved Outcomes in Refractory Cardiogenic Shock. ASAIO Journal. 2018;1:1-8. DOI:10.1097/mat.0000000000000767
41. Vallabhajosyula S, O’Horo JC, Antharam P, et al. Concomitant Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Use in Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2018;11(9):1-10. DOI:10.1161/circinterventions.118.006930
42. Baran, D. A, Grines CL, Bailey S, et al. SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2019;1–9. DOI:10.1002/ccd.28329
43. Masoudi FA, Ponirakis A, de Lemos JA, et al. Trends in U.S. cardiovascular care. 2016 report from 4 ACC National Cardiovascular Data Registries. Journal of American College of Cardiology. 2017;69:1427–50. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.12.005.
44. Median survival of AMICS patients treated at 763 sites supporting>4 AMICS patients with PCI. 4,891 patients total. Data on file. Abiomed Impella® Quality (IQ) Database, AMI/CGS, Apr 1, 2018 – Mar 28, 2019. Danvers, MA: Abiomed.
45. Vetrovec GW, Anderson M, Schreiber T, et al. The cVAD Registry for Percutaneous Temporary Hemodynamic Support A Prospective Registry of Impella Mechanical Circulatory Support Use in High Risk PCI, Cardiogenic Shock and Decompensated Heart Failur. American Heart Journal. 2017;199:115-121. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2017.09.007.
46. Abiomed, Inc. IMPELLA VENTRICULAR SUPPORT SYSTEMS FOR USE DURING CARDIOGENIC SHOCK AND HIGH-RISK PCI INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE AND CLINICAL REFERENCE MANUAL. 2018; Document No. 0042-9028, Rev. D
Review
For citations:
Boytsov S.A., Akchurin R.S., Pevzner D.V., Shakhnovich R.M., Ruda M.Ya. Cardiogenic shock — the current state of the problem. Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2019;(10):126-136. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15829/1560-4071-2019-10-126-136
Views:
2417
Email this article 