The impact of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) on survival and successful bridging to heart replacement therapies (HRT) in patients with heart failure-cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) remains unclear.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of early IABP use vs standard care on 60-day survival or successful bridging to HRT.

In the multicenter, prospective Altshock-2 (Study on Early Intra-aortic Balloon Pump Placement in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock), patients with Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions stage B, C, or D HF-CS and suitable for HRT were randomized to receive early IABP plus standard care (IABP group) or standard care (control group). The primary endpoint was survival or successful bridge to HRT at 60 days. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, maximum inotropic score, and maximum sequential organ failure assessment score.

In total, 53 patients were randomized to IABP and 48 to standard care. Patients were Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions stage B (28%, n = 28), C (57%, n = 56), and D (15%, n = 16). At the prespecified interim analysis, the trial was stopped because of futility. The primary endpoint was reached in 43 patients (81%) in the IABP group and 36 patients (75%) in the control group (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.31-1.68; P = 0.45). A total of 37 patients (37%) underwent HRT within the 60-day follow-up. Four patients were escalated in the study group (7.5%) vs 2 in the control group (4.2%). Additionally, 6 patients (13%) initially assigned to standard care crossed over to IABP. Complications were comparable between groups.

Routine early IABP plus standard care, compared with standard care, did not significantly improve survival or successful bridging to HRT in patients with HF-CS. (Study on Early Intra-aortic Balloon Pump Placement in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock [Altshock-2]; NCT04369573).

Cardiogenic shock represents a critical condition in which the heart is unable to maintain adequate circulation leading to insufficient tissue perfusion and end-organ failure. Temporary mechanical circulatory support offers the potential to stabilize patients, provide a bridge-to-recovery, provide a bridge-to-decision, or facilitate definitive heart replacement therapies. Although randomized controlled trials have been performed in infarct-related cardiogenic shock and refractory cardiac arrest, the optimal timing, appropriate patient selection, and optimal implementation of these devices remain complex and predominantly based on observational data and expert consensus, especially in non-ischaemic shock. This review explores the details of 'when, how, and for whom' temporary mechanical circulatory support devices should be used, examining specific clinical scenarios, the mechanisms by which they operate, and the patient populations that may benefit. The review also highlights the many gaps in evidence and need for better understanding of the interaction between human biology and these devices.

Mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS) remains high. Significant interhospital heterogeneity in critical care therapies has been described, which reflects the lack of high-quality evidence to guide optimal treatment. We aimed to describe differences in practices and clinical outcomes among patients with CS in the United States and Canada.

The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) is a research network of tertiary cardiac intensive care units (CICUs). Data collection spanned from 2017 to 2022. The analysis included 34 American and 8 Canadian sites. The outcomes of interest included baseline clinical differences, use of critical care monitoring and therapies, and all-cause in-hospital mortality between patients with CS in the United States and Canada admitted to CICUs.

Among 23,299 admissions, 19% had CS (n = 4336, 88% United States vs 12% Canada). The proportion of patient who received invasive hemodynamics (United States: 80.8% vs Canada: 74.8%, P = 0.0015), vasoactive medications (United States: 88.9% vs Canada: 82.1%, P < 0.0001), temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) (United States: 39.4% vs Canada: 23.1%, P < 0.0001) were more frequent in US centres. Intra-aortic balloon pump was the most common tMCS device in both countries. After multivariable adjustment, in-hospital mortality was higher in Canada vs United States (37.1% vs 29.4%, odds ratio [OR]: 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.83).

In a contemporary registry, management of CS was heterogenous between the United States and Canada, with higher use of invasive monitoring and MCS in the US. Although adjusted mortality was lower in the United States, the effects of these treatments cannot be reliably determined without randomized trial data.

Patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) present with critical hemodynamic compromise with low cardiac output (CO) resulting in end-organ dysfunction. Prognosis is closely related to the severity of shock, and treatment of patients with CS is resource intensive. In this review, we consider the current treatment paradigms alongside the evidence that underpins them. The current standard of treatment relies on a feedback mechanism, where small changes in treatment are assessed to see if clinical improvement occurs. This leads to delays that increase time in the shock state. The novel approach described proposes immediate treatment to ameliorate the shock state to "break" the shock spiral as quickly and decisively as possible, suggesting new metrics to measure performance.

Despite concerted efforts to rapidly identify patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) and provide timely revascularization, early mortality remains stubbornly high. Although artificially augmenting systemic flow by using temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices would be expected to reduce the rate of progression to multiorgan dysfunction and thereby enhance survival, reliable evidence for benefit has remained elusive with lingering questions regarding the appropriate selection of both patients and devices, as well as the timing of device implantation relative to other critical interventions. Further complicating matters are the resource-intensive multidisciplinary systems of care that must be brought to bear in this complex patient population. Until recently, studies of tMCS were extremely heterogeneous in design, populations treated, and timing of device implantation with regard to shock onset and revascularization. Attempts at summarizing the available data had resulted in a lack of clear benefit for any type of tMCS modality. On this background, 2 landmark trials of tMCS in the setting of AMI-CS---ECLS-SHOCK and DanGer Shock---have recently been published with divergent results that deserve detailed consideration. Thus, we provide a detailed narrative review of the current state of knowledge regarding tMCS for AMI-CS. The most common types of tMCS and related evidence are presented, as well as evidence for organizational considerations, such as the shock team. We also provide some insight into how this new evidence may be incorporated into practice and influence future research.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a life-threatening syndrome characterized by systemic hypoperfusion that can quickly progress to multiorgan failure and death. Various devices and configurations of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) exist to support patients, each with unique pathophysiological characteristics. The Intra-aortic balloon pump can improve coronary perfusion, decrease afterload, and indirectly augment cardiac output. TandemHeart, a percutaneous ventricular assist device, can decrease left ventricular preload and directly augment cardiac output. Neither the intra-aortic balloon pump nor the percutaneous ventricular assist device has been shown to decrease mortality in the revascularization era. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation can offer complete cardiopulmonary support; however, it has not been shown to decrease mortality. Recent studies have indicated that microaxial flow pumps, such as Abiomed's Impella family of devices, can decrease mortality in the AMI-CS population. Managing AMI-CS requires careful clinical assessment, as no single MCS device is universally effective, and device-related complications are common. While venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation provides complete support, it has not demonstrated a mortality benefit in major trials and carries significant risks. In contrast, microaxial flow pumps have shown a mortality benefit but with higher complication rates. Ongoing research and advancements aim to refine MCS strategies, improve device safety, and enhance patient outcomes.

Hemolysis, variably defined in mechanical circulatory support (MCS), is understudied in percutaneous left ventricular assist devices. We characterize hemolytic sequelae of Impella 5.5-supported patients in the largest series to date.

All Impella 5.5 patients at our center from 2020 to 2023 were identified (n = 169) and retrospectively reviewed. Patients with a plasma free hemoglobin (PfHb) recorded (and not previously elevated) were included (n = 123). The top (high hemolysis [HH], n = 26) and bottom (low hemolysis [LH], n = 25) quintiles were categorized based on PfHb levels. Analysis between groups identified factors associated with hemolysis.

HH patients had higher admission SCAI stages (p = 0.008), more Impella 5.5 days (23.5 v 10.0, p = 0.001), more additional MCS (16/26 [61.5%] v 6/25 [24.0%], p = 0.015), and more transfusions of packed red blood cells (12.5 v 4.0, p = 0.001), fresh frozen plasma (2.5 v 0.0, p = 0.033), and platelets (3.0 v 0.0, p = 0.002). Logistic regression identified additional MCS (OR 10.82, p = 0.004) and more Impella days (OR 1.13 p = 0.006) as hemolysis risk factors. Eleven (44%) LH and 19/26 (73%) HH patients died, with no significant differences between postoperative complications. Compared with those who died, HH survivors had fewer platelet transfusions (2.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.01) and less PfHb elevation days (3.0 v 6.0, p = 0.007).

Hemolysis in this high-risk cohort has a poor prognosis. HH patients spent more days on Impella 5.5, needed more MCS, and required more blood product transfusions.

As the field of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) continues to advance and resuscitation protocols are being refined, older adults patients previously not considered for MCS are now being supported. MCS devices can broadly be classified based on the duration of support into temporary or durable devices. Although mortality is higher in the older adults, carefully selected patients, MCS support can be valuable and lead to excellent recovery. Age itself should not preclude patients from being candidates for MCS because we must not restrict the progress of science in medicine for any age.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is marked by substantial morbidity and mortality. The two major CS etiologies include heart failure (HF) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The utilization trends of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and their clinical outcomes are not well described.

This study compares the rates of MCS utilization, factors associated with utilization, and clinical outcomes in patients who present with HF-CS and AMI-CS, using 2016-2020 National Inpatient Sample data.

The study included 329,280 patients, comprising 204,660 cases of AMI-CS and 124,620 of HF-CS. MCS utilization increased over the study period with variable degree among devices, and CS-phenotype. AMI-CS had higher intraaortic balloon pump (32.4 % vs. 8.9 %), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (2.8 % vs. 2.4 %), and percutaneous ventricular assist device use (14.5 % vs. 8.1 %) compared to HF-CS (p < 0.01). Factors linked to lower MCS use were female sex, age over 60 years, Black race, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive lung disease, diabetes mellitus, cirrhosis, previous stroke, or myocardial infarction. After adjusting for various factors, patients with HF-CS vs. AMI-CS had significantly fewer adverse outcomes, including inpatient death, stroke, tracheostomy, mechanical ventilation, and blood transfusion. However, HF-CS had higher odds of acute renal failure requiring dialysis. AMI-CS was associated with shorter hospital stays (8.8 vs. 15.0 days, p < 0.001), lower charges ($251,580 vs. $294,792, p < 0.001), and were less likely to discharge home.

Despite the evolving trends in MCS utilization over time, CS patients still face high morbidity and mortality rates. The underlying shock etiology has a substantial impact on outcomes, with AMI cases demonstrating worse complications. This highlights the need for a standardized approach that also takes into consideration etiology, patient-specific factors, care availability, and equitable access.

Heart failure represents a dynamic clinical challenge with the continuous rise of a multi-morbid and ageing population. Yet, the evolving nature of mechanical circulatory support offers a variety of means to manage candidates who might benefit from such interventions. This narrative review focuses on the role of the main mechanical circulatory support devices, such as ventricular assist device, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella and TandemHeart, in the physiological process of ventricular unloading and remodelling in heart failure, highlighting their characteristics, mechanism and clinical outcomes. The outcome measures described include physiological changes (i.e., stroke volume or preload and afterload), intracardiac pressure (i.e., end-diastolic pressure) and extracardiac pressure (i.e., pulmonary capillary wedge pressure). Overall, all the above mechanical circulatory support strategies can facilitate the unloading of the ventricular failure through different mechanisms, which subsequently affects the ventricular remodelling process. These physiological changes start immediately after ventricular assist device implantation. The devices are indicated in different but overlapping populations and operate in distinctive ways; yet, they have evidenced performance to a favourable standard to improve cardiac function in heart failure, although this proved variable for different devices, and further high-quality trials are vital to assess their clinical outcomes further. Both Impella and TandemHeart are indicated mainly in cardiogenic shock and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention patients; at the time the literature was evaluated, both devices were found to yield a significant improvement in haemodynamics but not in survival. Nevertheless, the choice of device strategy should be based on individual patient factors, including indication, to optimize clinical outcomes.

Cardiogenic shock is a multisystem pathology that carries a high mortality rate, and initial pharmacotherapies include the use of vasopressors and inotropes. These agents can increase myocardial oxygen consumption and decrease tissue perfusion that can oftentimes result in a state of refractory cardiogenic shock for which temporary mechanical circulatory support can be considered. Numerous support devices are available, each with its own hemodynamic blueprint. Defining a patient's hemodynamic profile and understanding the phenotype of cardiogenic shock is important in device selection. Careful patient selection incorporating a multidisciplinary team approach should be utilized.

Percutaneous active mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are being increasingly used in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMICS) despite conflicting evidence regarding their effect on mortality. We aimed to ascertain the effect of early routine active percutaneous MCS versus control treatment on 6-month all-cause mortality in patients with AMICS.

In this individual patient data meta-analysis, randomised controlled trials of potential interest were identified, without language restriction, by querying the electronic databases MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov, up to Jan 26, 2024. All randomised trials with 6-month mortality data comparing early routine active MCS (directly in the catheterisation laboratory after randomisation) versus control in patients with AMICS were included. The primary outcome was 6-month all-cause mortality in patients with AMICS treated with early routine active percutaneous MCS versus control, with a focus on device type (loading, such as venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [VA-ECMO] vs unloading) and patient selection. Hazard ratios (HRs) of the primary outcome measure were calculated using Cox regression models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024504295.

Nine reports of randomised controlled trials (n=1114 patients) were evaluated in detail. Overall, four randomised controlled trials (n=611 patients) compared VA-ECMO with a control treatment and five randomised controlled trials (n=503 patients) compared left ventricular unloading devices with a control treatment. Two randomised controlled trials also included patients who did not have AMICS, who were excluded (55 patients [44 who were treated with VA-ECMO and 11 who were treated with a left ventricular unloading device]). The median patient age was 65 years (IQR 57-73); 845 (79·9%) of 1058 patients with data were male and 213 (20·1%) were female. No significant benefit of early unselected MCS use on 6-month mortality was noted (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·74-1·03]; p=0·10). No significant differences were observed for left ventricular unloading devices versus control (0·80 [0·62-1·02]; p=0·075), and loading devices also had no effect on mortality (0·93 [0·75-1·17]; p=0·55). Patients with ST-elevation cardiogenic shock without risk of hypoxic brain injury had a reduction in mortality with MCS use (0·77 [0·61-0·97]; p=0·024). Major bleeding (odds ratio 2·64 [95% CI 1·91-3·65]) and vascular complications (4·43 [2·37-8·26]) were more frequent with MCS use than with control.

The use of active MCS devices in patients with AMICS did not reduce 6-month mortality (regardless of the device used) and increased major bleeding and vascular complications. However, patients with ST-elevation cardiogenic shock without risk of hypoxic brain injury had a reduction in mortality after MCS use. Therefore, the use of MCS should be restricted to certain patients only.

The Heart Center Leipzig at Leipzig University and the Foundation Institut für Herzinfarktforschung.

Since the development of the first heart allocation system in 1988 to the most recent heart allocation system in 2018, the road to heart transplantation has continued to evolve. Policies were shaped with advances in temporary and durable left ventricular assist devices as well as prioritization of patients based on degree of illness. Herein, we review the changes in the heart allocation system over the past several decades and the impact of practice patterns across the United States.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex life-threatening condition that results from primary cardiac dysfunction, leading to persistent hypotension and systemic hypoperfusion. Among the therapeutic options for CS are various percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices that have emerged as an increasingly effective hemodynamic support option. Percutaneous therapies can act as short-term mechanical circulatory assistance and can be split into intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and non-IABP percutaneous mechanical devices.

This review will evaluate the MCS value while considering the mortality rate improvements. We also aim to outline the function of pharmacotherapies and percutaneous hemodynamic MCS devices in managing CS patients to avoid the onset of end-organ dysfunction and improve both early and late outcomes.

Given the complexity, acuity and high mortality associated with CS, and despite the availability and efficacy of pharmacological management, MCS is required to achieve hemodynamic stability and improve survival. Various percutaneous MCS devices are available with varying indications and clinical outcomes. The rates of early mortality and complications were found to be comparable between the four devices, yet, IABP seemed to show the most optimal clinical profile whilst ECMO demonstrated its more long-term efficacy.

Physical therapy (PT) benefits for critically ill patients are well recognized; however, little data exist on PT in patients receiving temporary mechanical circulatory support. In this single-center retrospective study (February 2017-January 2022), we analyzed 37 patients who received an axillary Impella device (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) and PT to "prehabilitate" them before durable left ventricular assist device (dLVAD) implantation. The Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) Basic Mobility tool assessed the functional status at different points during admission. Immediately after Impella placement, the median AM-PAC score was 12.7 (interquartile range [IQR], 9-15), and the scores continued to significantly increase to 18.4 (IQR, 16-23) before dLVAD and up to 20.7 (IQR, 19-24) at discharge, indicating improved independence. No PT-related complications were reported. Thus, we hypothesize that critically ill patients initially deemed equivocal candidates may safely participate in PT while maximizing functional activities before dLVAD placement.

Right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) continues to be a significant contributor to both mortality and morbidity, posing a significant challenge in the management of patients undergoing evaluation for mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Currently, there is a paucity of data regarding outcomes in this subset of patients. We analyzed the National Inpatient Sample database (NIS) to identify adult hospitalizations who underwent intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) placement with or without co-existence of RVD. Multivariate logistic regression, and linear regression analyses were used to compare outcomes, and adjust for possible confounders. Out of 126,985 hospitalizations who underwent IABP placement, 1,475 (1.2%) had RVD. Patients with RVD who received an IABP had higher adjusted odds of inpatient mortality (Adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7-3.2, p<0.001) than those without co-existing RVD. Hospitalized patients who underwent IABP placement with RVD had higher adjusted odds of worse hospitalization outcomes in general. Conducting additional prospective studies and clinical trials with an emphasis on further subcategorization of patients with RVD is crucial for determining optimal management strategies for these patients.

The use of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) as a direct bridge to heart transplantation (BTT) is not common in adults worldwide. BTT with ECMO is associated with increased early/mid-term mortality compared with other interventions. In low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), where no other type of short-term mechanical circulatory support is available, its use is widespread and increasingly used as rescue therapy in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) as a direct bridge to heart transplantation (HT).

To assess the outcomes of adult patients using VA-ECMO as a direct BTT in an LMIC and compare them with international registries.

We conducted a single-center study analyzing consecutive adult patients requiring VA-ECMO as BTT due to refractory CS or cardiac arrest (CA) in a cardiovascular center in Argentina between January 2014 and December 2022. Survival and adverse clinical events after VA-ECMO implantation were evaluated.

Of 86 VA-ECMO, 22 (25.5%) were implanted as initial BTT strategy, and 52.1% of them underwent HT. Mean age was 46 years (SD 12); 59% were male. ECMO was indicated in 81% for CS, and the most common underlying condition was coronary artery disease (31.8%). Overall, in-hospital mortality for VA-ECMO as BTT was 50%. Survival to discharge was 83% in those who underwent HT and 10% in those who did not, p < .001. In those who did not undergo HT, the main cause of death was hemorrhagic complications (44%), followed by thrombotic complications (33%). The median duration of VA-ECMO was 6 days (IQR 3-16). There were no differences in the number of days on ECMO between those who received a transplant and those who did not. In the Spanish registry, in-hospital survival after HT was 66.7%; the United Network of Organ Sharing registry estimated post-transplant survival at 73.1% ± 4.4%, and in the French national registry 1-year posttransplant survival was 70% in the VA-ECMO group.

In adult patients with cardiogenic shock, VA-ECMO as a direct BTT allowed successful HT in half of the patients. HT provided a survival benefit in listed patients on VA-ECMO. We present a single center experience with results comparable to those of international registries.

Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is the primary cause of death in patients suffering acute myocardial infarction. As an emerging and efficacious therapeutic approach, Chinese herbal injections (CHIs) are gaining significant popularity in China. However, the optimal CHIs for treating CS remain uncertain. Method: We searched eight databases from inception to 30 September 2023. Subsequently, we conducted the Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Interventions were ranked based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability values. To compare the effects of CHIs on two distinct outcomes, a clustering analysis was performed. Furthermore, the quality of the studies was assessed. Results: For the study, we included 43 RCTs, encompassing 2,707 participants. The study evaluated six herbal injections, namely, Shenfu injection (SF), Shengmai injection (SM), Shenmai injection (Sm), Danshen injection (DS), Huangqi injection (HQ), and Xinmailong injection (XML). The analysis findings suggested that Sm (MD = -1.05, 95% CI: -2.10, -0.09) and SF (MD = -0.81, 95% CI: -1.40, -0.25) showed better efficacy compared to Western medicine (WM) alone in reducing in-hospital mortality. The SUCRA values revealed that Sm + WM ranked first in terms of in-hospital mortality, cardiac index (CI), and hourly urine output but second in improving left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and mean arterial pressure (MAP). SF + WM, however, had the greatest impact on raising the clinical effective rate. In MAP, SM + WM came out on top. Moreover, in terms of safety, only 14 studies (31.8%), including five types of CHIs: SF, Sm, SM, HQ, and XML, observed adverse drug reactions. Conclusion: To summarize, this analysis discovered that, in terms of patients suffering from CS, CHIs + WM yielded significantly greater advantages than WM alone. Based on in-hospital mortality and the remaining outcomes, Sm performed excellently among all the involved CHIs. Systematic Review Registration: https:// www.Crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42022347053.

Implantable devices form an integral part of the management of patients with heart failure (HF) and provide adjunctive therapies in addition to cornerstone drug treatment. Although the number of these devices is growing, only few are supported by robust evidence. Current devices aim to improve haemodynamics, improve reverse remodelling, or provide electrical therapy. A number of these devices have guideline recommendations and some have been shown to improve outcomes such as cardiac resynchronization therapy, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and long-term mechanical support. For others, more evidence is still needed before large-scale implementation can be strongly advised. Of note, devices and drugs can work synergistically in HF as improved disease control with devices can allow for further optimization of drug therapy. Therefore, some devices might already be considered early in the disease trajectory of HF patients, while others might only be reserved for advanced HF. As such, device therapy should be integrated into HF care programmes. Unfortunately, implementation of devices, including those with the greatest evidence, in clinical care pathways is still suboptimal. This clinical consensus document of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) describes the physiological rationale behind device-provided therapy and also device-guided management, offers an overview of current implantable device options recommended by the guidelines and proposes a new integrated model of device therapy as a part of HF care.

Heart Failure (HF) remains a global health challenge, marked by its widespread prevalence and substantial resource utilization. Although the prognosis has improved in recent decades due to the treatments implemented, it continues to generate high morbidity and mortality in the medium to long term. Interventional cardiology has emerged as a crucial player in HF management, offering a diverse array of percutaneous treatments for both acute and chronic HF. This article aimed to provide a comprehensive review of the role of percutaneous interventions in HF patients, with a primary focus on key features, clinical effectiveness, and safety outcomes. Despite the growing utilization of these interventions, there remain critical gaps in the existing body of evidence. Consequently, the need for high-quality randomized clinical trials and extensive international registries is emphasized to shed light on the specific patient populations and clinical scenarios that stand to benefit most from these innovative devices.

Randomized studies attempting to prove benefit of mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock have failed to reduce the risk of death. Further, both registry and randomized data suggest increased rates of serious complications associated with these devices. This last review in the supplement discusses current evidence and provides a perspective on how the scientific community could advance cardiogenic shock research focused on mechanical circulatory support.

Postcardiotomy shock (PCS) is generally described as the inability to separate from cardiopulmonary bypass due to ineffective cardiac output after cardiotomy, which is caused by a primary cardiac disorder, resulting in inadequate tissue perfusion. Postcardiotomy shock occurs in 0.5% to 1.5% of contemporary cardiac surgery cases, and is accompanied by an in-hospital mortality of approximately 67%. In the last 2 decades, the incidence of PCS has increased, likely due to the increased age and baseline morbidity of patients requiring cardiac surgery. In this narrative review, the authors discuss the epidemiology and pathophysiology of PCS, the rationale and evidence behind the initiation, continuation, escalation, and discontinuation of mechanical support devices in PCS, and the anesthetic implications.

Ventricular septal rupture (VSR) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a rare but often fatal complication. Surgery is considered the preferred treatment, although the optimal timing is discussed. The immediate preoperative hemodynamic status significantly impacts postoperative outcomes, making mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices crucial for perioperative hemodynamic stability. We present the case of a 61-year-old woman with no remarkable cardiological history admitted to our hospital with a diagnosis of AMI and VSR. Due to hemodynamic instability and cardiogenic shock, we utilized an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and an extracorporeal left ventricular assist device (extra-VAD) as a bridge to surgery. After 17 days of IABP support, the patient experienced hemodynamic instability, elevated lactate levels, pulmonary edema, and eventually bedside endotracheal infiltration inventor-assisted breathing. Subsequently, the IABP was removed, and the patient underwent 6 days of extra-VAD therapy, resulting in hemodynamic stability, a decline in lactate levels, and a reduction in pulmonary edema on X-ray. Surgical coronary artery bypass grafting and VSR repair were successfully performed without periprocedural complications, and the patient was subsequently discharged. Extra-VAD is useful for serious cardiogenic shock in patients with VSR after AMI and may be considered a reasonable approach as a bridge to surgery.

Cardiogenic shock is a multisystem pathology that carries a high mortality rate, and initial pharmacotherapies include the use of vasopressors and inotropes. These agents can increase myocardial oxygen consumption and decrease tissue perfusion that can oftentimes result in a state of refractory cardiogenic shock for which temporary mechanical circulatory support can be considered. Numerous support devices are available, each with its own hemodynamic blueprint. Defining a patient's hemodynamic profile and understanding the phenotype of cardiogenic shock is important in device selection. Careful patient selection incorporating a multidisciplinary team approach should be utilized.

Cardiogenic shock remains one of the leading causes of death in patients with myocardial infarction. The Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has been widely used as a treatment for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), despite recommendations against its routine use. In this paper, our aim is to analyze and share our own experience with IABP in the setting of AMI. We retrospectively reviewed the files of patients admitted with AMI and cardiogenic shock and for whom IABP was inserted between June 2016 and December 2022.

300 patients with AMI and cardiogenic shock were admitted and benefited from IABP insertion and primary coronary revascularization. The overall mortality rate was 62.3%, the site related complication rate was 0.6%, and the overall complications rate (including site related and major bleeding) was 10.6%. There was a significantly higher mortality in the group of patients where the Left Anterior Descending artery (LAD) was the culprit lesion, in the group of patients who required dialysis, the group who had creatinine levels greater than 200 um/L compared to the group who had creatinine lower than 200 um/L, and in patients older than 70 years. Interestingly, no difference in mortality was observed between men and women, single versus multiple vessel disease, and between STEMI and non-STEMI patients.

Mortality of AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock and treated by IABP remains high. However, IABP usage is associated with a low complication rate. Better selection criteria for IABP usage versus other more powerful mechanical circulatory support devices in such patients might improve the outcome for the patient.

Inotropic support is commonly used in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). High-quality data guiding the use of dobutamine or milrinone among this patient population is limited. We compared the efficacy and safety of these two inotropes among patients with low cardiac output states (LCOS) or CS.

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to February 1, 2023, using key terms and index headings related to LCOS or CS and inotropes.

Two independent reviewers included studies that compared dobutamine to milrinone on all-cause in-hospital mortality, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, and significant arrhythmias in hospitalized patients.

A total of eleven studies with 21,084 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Only two randomized controlled trials were identified. The primary outcome, all-cause mortality, favored milrinone in observational studies only (odds ratio [OR] 1.19 (95% CI, 1.02-1.39; p = 0.02). In-hospital length of stay (LOS) was reduced with dobutamine in observational studies only (mean difference -1.85 d; 95% CI -3.62 to -0.09; p = 0.04). There was no difference in the prevalence of significant arrhythmias or in ICU LOS.

Only limited data exists supporting the use of one inotropic agent over another exists. Dobutamine may be associated with a shorter hospital LOS; however, there is also a potential for increased all-cause mortality. Larger randomized studies sufficiently powered to detect a difference in these outcomes are required to confirm these findings.

As the field of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) continues to advance and resuscitation protocols are being refined, elderly patients previously not considered for MCS are now being supported. MCS devices can broadly be classified based on the duration of support into temporary or durable devices. Although mortality is higher in the elderly, carefully selected patients, MCS support can be valuable and lead to excellent recovery. Age itself should not preclude patients from being candidates for MCS because we must not restrict the progress of science in medicine for any age.

Cardiogenic shock continues to have high morbidity and mortality, despite advances in the field. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (TMCS) devices, if instituted in a timely fashion, can help stabilize critically ill patients with cardiogenic shock from various aetiologies and cardiac arrest, and provide time for organ recovery or till durable support or transplantation can be achieved. Currently, several options for TMCS devices exist. In this review, we discuss indications, contraindications, characteristics of the various available devices, and important issues pertaining to their management.

Advanced heart failure (AHF) represents an ominous stage of heart failure (HF), where the expected prognosis remains poor regardless of the improvement in medical knowledge. In this review, we summarize the definition, prognosis, physiopathology, and clinical/therapeutic management of the disease, focusing on the fast and timely referral of the patient to the AHF facilities. We provide an insight of the diagnostic and therapeutic 'work up' performed in an Italian AHF hub, implying a deep phenotypical patients characterization in order to evaluate candidacy to the therapeutic gold standards as heart transplantation (HTx) and left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

Cardiogenic shock complicating acute MI carries high mortality and morbidity in many cases. Mechanical circulatory support devices are often used in these cases, aimed at improving patient-centered outcomes, although there is a lack of large randomized clinical trial-based evidence for many of such devices. Various circulatory support devices are available with their associated risks and benefits. Ideal circulatory support device intends to unload the myocardium, halt the spiral of ischemia, provide support for revascularization, and/or allow time for myocardial recovery. In this review paper, the commonly used mechanical circulatory support devices available for use in acute myocardial infarction settings are discussed, and the pros and cons of these devices are examined, considering the contemporary data for each. While this is an evolving field, the authors believe this paper can be helpful to review the current status of the use of mechanical support devices in the setting of acute MI and highlight some of the unmet needs in this field.

Originally intended for life-saving salvage therapy, the use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices has become increasingly widespread in a variety of clinical settings in the contemporary era. Their use as a short-term, prophylactic support vehicle has expanded to include procedures in the catheterization laboratory, electrophysiology suite, operating room and intensive care unit. Accordingly, MCS device design and technology continue to develop at a rapid pace. In this Review, we describe the functionality, indications, management and complications associated with temporary MCS, together with scenario-specific utilization, goal-directed development and bioengineering of future devices. We address various considerations for the use of temporary MCS devices in both prophylactic and rescue scenarios, with input from stakeholders from various cardiovascular specialties, including interventional and heart failure cardiology, electrophysiology, cardiothoracic anaesthesiology, critical care and cardiac surgery.

Cardiogenic shock is a complex syndrome manifesting with distinct phenotypes depending on the severity of the primary cardiac insult and the underlying status. As long as therapeutic interventions fail to divert its unopposed rapid evolution, poor outcomes will continue challenging health care systems. Thus, early recognition in the emergency setting is a priority, in order to avoid delays in appropriate management and to ensure immediate initial stabilization. Since advanced therapeutic strategies and specialized shock centers may provide beneficial support, it seems that directing patients towards the recently described shock network may improve survival rates. A multidisciplinary approach strategy commands the interconnections between the strategic role of the ED in affiliation with cardiac shock centers. This review outlines critical features of early recognition and initial therapeutic management, as well as the utility of diagnostic tools and risk stratification models regarding the facilitation of patient trajectories through the shock network. Further, it proposes the implementation of precise criteria for shock team activation and the establishment of definite exclusion criteria for streaming the right patient to the right place at the right time.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) caused by acute myocardial infarction (AMI) accounts for most deaths in the population with AMI and continues to be associated with high short-term mortality. Several temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have been developed to treat CS and studied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with AMI-CS. Unfortunately, none of these RCTs has demonstrated an improvement in survival with temporary MCS in AMI-CS. Potential reasons for these negative results in RCTs are numerous and reflect the challenges of enrolling critically ill patients with CS. Researchers have used observational study designs to provide insights about outcomes associated with the use of temporary MCS in AMI-CS. These observational studies have yielded conflicting results, in some cases contrary to the results of RCTs. Several limitations pertinent to both RCTs and observational analyses, mostly relating to selection bias and failure to consider unmeasured confounding variables and population heterogeneity, preclude drawing strong inferences regarding the effects of temporary MCS on survival in populations with AMI-CS. Understanding these limitations is essential to correctly interpreting the literature regarding temporary MCS to treat AMI-CS and is necessary to inform the design of future studies that will potentially provide stronger evidence. Optimally matching temporary MCS devices to the needs of individual patients with AMI-CS will presumably be more successful than indiscriminate application in unselected patients. In this review, we discuss the existing literature on temporary MCS to treat AMI-CS and describe the specific challenges that must be overcome to develop an improved evidence base for guiding clinical practice.

TandemHeart has been demonstrated to improve hemodynamic and metabolic complications in cardiogenic shock (CS). Contemporary outcomes have not been reported.

To evaluate the outcomes of the TandemHeart (LivaNova) in contemporary real-world use.

We analyzed baseline characteristics, hemodynamic changes, and outcomes of all patients treated with TandemHeart who were enrolled in the THEME registry, a multicenter, prospective, observational study.

Between May 2015 and June 2019, 50 patients underwent implantation of the TandemHeart device. 22% of patients had TandemHeart implanted within 12 h, 32% within 24 h, and 52% within 48 h of CS diagnosis. Cardiac index (CI) was significantly improved 24 h after implantation (median change 1.0, interquartile range (IQR) (0.5-1.4 L/min/m² ). In survivors, there was a significant improvement in CI (1.0, IQR (0.5-2.25 L/min/m² ) and lactate clearance -2.3 (-5.0 to -0.7 mmol/L). The 30-day and 180-day survival were 74% (95% confidence interval: 60%-85%) and 66% (95% confidence interval: 51%-79%), respectively. Survival was similarly high in those in whom TandemHeart has been used as a bridge to surgery (85% 180-day survival).

In a contemporary cohort of patients presenting in CS, the use of TandemHeart is associated with a 74% 30-day survival and a 66% 180-day survival.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex clinical entity that continues to carry a high risk of mortality. The landscape of CS management has changed with the advent of several temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices designed to provide hemodynamic support. It remains challenging to understand the role of different temporary MCS devices in patients with CS, as many of these patients are critically ill, requiring complex care with multiple MCS device options. Each temporary MCS device can provide different types and levels of hemodynamic support. It is important to understand the risk/benefit profile of each one of them for appropriate device selection in patients with CS.

MCS may be beneficial in CS patients through augmentation of cardiac output with subsequent improvement of systemic perfusion. Selecting the optimal MCS device depends on several variables including the underlying etiology of CS, clinical strategy of MCS use (bridge to recovery, bridge to transplant or durable MCS, or abridge to decision), amount of hemodynamic support needed, associated respiratory failure, and institutional preference. Furthermore, it is even more challenging to determine the appropriate time to escalate from one MCS device to another or combine different MCS devices. In this review, we discuss the current available data published in the literature on the management of CS and propose a standardized approach for escalation of MCS devices in patients with CS. Shock teams can play an important role to help in hemodynamic-guided management and algorithm-based step-by-step approach in early initiation and escalation of temporary MCS devices at different stages of CS. It is important to define the etiology of CS, and stage of shock and recognize univentricular vs biventricular shock for appropriate device selection and escalation of therapy.