Prognostic Impact of Active Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction, Results from the Culprit-Shock Trial

Objectives: To analyze the use and prognostic impact of active mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in a large prospective contemporary cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Background: Although increasingly used in clinical practice, data on the efficacy and safety of active MCS devices in patients with CS complicating AMI are limited. Methods: This is a predefined subanalysis of the CULPRIT-SHOCK randomized trial and prospective registry. Patients with CS, AMI and multivessel coronary artery disease were categorized in two groups: (1) use of at least one active MCS device vs. (2) no active MCS or use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) only. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death or renal replacement therapy at 30 days. Results: Two hundred of 1055 (19%) patients received at least one active MCS device (n = 112 Impella®; n = 95 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); n = 6 other devices). The primary endpoint occurred significantly more often in patients treated with active MCS devices compared with those without active MCS devices (142 of 197, 72% vs. 374 of 827, 45%; p < 0.001). All-cause mortality and bleeding rates were significantly higher in the active MCS group (all p < 0.001). After multivariable adjustment, the use of active MCS was significantly associated with the primary endpoint (odds ratio (OR) 4.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7–5.9; p < 0.001). Conclusions: In the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, active MCS devices were used in approximately one fifth of patients. Patients treated with active MCS devices showed worse outcome at 30 days and 1 year.

[1]  H. Thiele,et al.  Frequency and Impact of Bleeding on Outcome in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock. , 2020, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[2]  J. Messenger,et al.  Association of Use of an Intravascular Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-aortic Balloon Pump With In-Hospital Mortality and Major Bleeding Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock. , 2020, JAMA.

[3]  J. Henriques,et al.  Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction: Impella CP/5.0 versus ECMO , 2020, European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care.

[4]  J. Spertus,et al.  The Evolving Landscape of Impella Use in the United States Among Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Mechanical Circulatory Support , 2019, Circulation.

[5]  C. Granger,et al.  Clinical Practice Patterns in Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Shock in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry. , 2019, Circulation. Heart failure.

[6]  E. Ohman,et al.  Management of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: an update 2019. , 2019, European heart journal.

[7]  C. Hassager,et al.  Temporal trends in incidence and patient characteristics in cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction from 2010 to 2017: a Danish cohort study , 2019, European journal of heart failure.

[8]  A. Boulesteix,et al.  Extracorporeal Life Support in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction. , 2019, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[9]  B. Pieske,et al.  Impella versus IABP in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock , 2019, Open Heart.

[10]  F. Eberli,et al.  Twenty-Year Trends in the Incidence and Outcome of Cardiogenic Shock in AMIS Plus Registry , 2019, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[11]  S. Blankenberg,et al.  Impella Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: Matched-Pair IABP-SHOCK II Trial 30-Day Mortality Analysis , 2019, Circulation.

[12]  A. Kirtane,et al.  Left Ventricular Unloading During Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock. , 2019, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[13]  R. Yeh,et al.  Hospital Variation in the Utilization of Short-Term Nondurable Mechanical Circulatory Support in Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock , 2019, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[14]  H. Thiele,et al.  Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction: Long-Term 6-Year Outcome of the Randomized IABP-SHOCK II Trial , 2019, Circulation.

[15]  S. Blankenberg,et al.  Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Cardiopulmonary Support. , 2018, Circulation.

[16]  H. Thiele,et al.  One‐Year Outcomes after PCI Strategies in Cardiogenic Shock , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  T. Friede,et al.  Impact of treatment delay on mortality in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients presenting with and without haemodynamic instability: results from the German prospective, multicentre FITT-STEMI trial , 2018, European heart journal.

[18]  Ajay K. Jain,et al.  Contemporary trends in cardiogenic shock: Incidence, intra-aortic balloon pump utilisation and outcomes from the London Heart Attack Group , 2018, European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care.

[19]  R. Yeh,et al.  National trends, predictors of use, and in-hospital outcomes in mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock. , 2017, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[20]  J. Wald,et al.  Trends in mechanical circulatory support use and hospital mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction and non-infarction related cardiogenic shock in the United States , 2018, Clinical Research in Cardiology.

[21]  H. Thiele,et al.  Percutaneous short-term active mechanical support devices in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials , 2017, European heart journal.

[22]  H. Thiele,et al.  PCI Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  J. Tijssen,et al.  Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction. , 2017, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[24]  B. D. de Mol,et al.  Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2016, Intensive Care Medicine.

[25]  D. Brodie,et al.  Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: evolving epidemiology and mortality , 2016, Intensive Care Medicine.

[26]  G. Schuler,et al.  Multivessel versus culprit lesion only percutaneous revascularization plus potential staged revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Design and rationale of CULPRIT-SHOCK trial. , 2016, American heart journal.

[27]  J. Messenger,et al.  Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry , 2015, Circulation.

[28]  A. Zaman,et al.  Shock-index as a novel predictor of long-term outcome following primary percutaneous coronary intervention , 2015, European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care.

[29]  Xin Lu,et al.  Trends in the use of percutaneous ventricular assist devices: analysis of national inpatient sample data, 2007 through 2012. , 2015, JAMA internal medicine.

[30]  G. Schuler,et al.  Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial , 2013, The Lancet.

[31]  G. Schuler,et al.  Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[32]  N. Danchin,et al.  Improved outcome of cardiogenic shock at the acute stage of myocardial infarction: a report from the USIK 1995, USIC 2000, and FAST-MI French nationwide registries. , 2012, European heart journal.

[33]  Kenichi A. Tanaka,et al.  High mortality associated with intracardiac and intrapulmonary thromboses after cardiopulmonary bypass , 2012, Journal of Anesthesia.

[34]  J. Moses,et al.  Impella LP 2.5 for Left Ventricular Unloading During Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support , 2011, Journal of cardiac surgery.

[35]  A. Barbone,et al.  Left ventricle unloading by percutaneous pigtail during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. , 2011, Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery.

[36]  Marco Valgimigli,et al.  Standardized Bleeding Definitions for Cardiovascular Clinical Trials: A Consensus Report From the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium , 2011, Circulation.

[37]  Adnan Kastrati,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. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[38]  M. Pfisterer,et al.  Ten-Year Trends in the Incidence and Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[39]  D. Burkhoff,et al.  A randomized multicenter clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device versus conventional therapy with intraaortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock. , 2006, American heart journal.

[40]  H. White,et al.  Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. , 2006, JAMA.

[41]  G. Schuler,et al.  Randomized comparison of intra-aortic balloon support with a percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients with revascularized acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. , 2003, European heart journal.

[42]  H. White,et al.  Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.