Cardiogenic shock due to predominantly right ventricular failure complicating acute myocardial infarction.

AIMS The objective was to describe patient characteristics, interventions, and outcome in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS), due to predominantly right ventricular (RV) failure after revascularization, in comparison with patients suffering from left ventricular (LV) failure as these patients remain sparsely characterized. METHODS AND RESULTS From 2010 to 2017, consecutive AMICS patients admitted to either of two tertiary heart centres, covering 3.9 million citizens, corresponding to two-thirds of the Danish population, were identified and individually reviewed through patient records. A total of 1716 AMICS patients were identified, of which 1482 underwent acute revascularization and included for analysis. Hereof, 101 (7%) patients developed cardiogenic shock due to predominantly RV failure, while 1381 (93%) had significant LV involvement. Female sex was the only demographic factor associated with RV failure (35% vs. 25%, P = 0.01). Despite having a preserved LV ejection fraction, patients with predominantly RV failure were comparable to patients with LV involvement, in terms of haemodynamic and metabolic profile, here among variables commonly used in the cardiogenic shock definition including blood pressure (82 mmHg vs. 83 mmHg, P = 0.90) and lactate level (5.7 mmol/L vs. 5.4 mmol/L, P = 0.70). Patients with RV AMICS had significantly lower 30-day mortality than LV AMICS, and this result persisted after multivariable adjustment (RV vs. LV; hazard ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.41-0.92, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION In contemporary AMICS patients undergoing revascularization, patients with predominantly RV failure had comparable haemodynamics and metabolic derangement on admission compared to patients with LV failure but was associated with female sex and a significantly lower 30-day mortality.

[1]  G. Filippatos,et al.  Epidemiology, pathophysiology and contemporary management of cardiogenic shock – a position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology , 2020, European journal of heart failure.

[2]  H. Thiele,et al.  Sex-Specific Management in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock , 2020, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[3]  C. Granger,et al.  Acute Cardiovascular Care Association position statement for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: A document of the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association of the European Society of Cardiology , 2020, European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care.

[4]  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.

[5]  C. Terkelsen,et al.  Rationale and design of DanGer shock: Danish-German cardiogenic shock trial. , 2019, American heart journal.

[6]  Kristian Thygesen,et al.  Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction (2018). , 2018, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[7]  T. Kawashima,et al.  Clarifying the anatomy of the atrioventricular node artery. , 2018, International journal of cardiology.

[8]  P. Parikh,et al.  Gender Disparities in Presentation, Management, and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction , 2018, Current Cardiology Reports.

[9]  B. Bozkurt,et al.  Evaluation and Management of Right-Sided Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association , 2018, Circulation.

[10]  H. Sørensen,et al.  The Western Denmark Heart Registry: Its Influence on Cardiovascular Patient Care. , 2018, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  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.

[12]  G. Chatellier,et al.  Cardiogenic shock in intensive care units: evolution of prevalence, patient profile, management and outcomes, 1997–2012 , 2017, European journal of heart failure.

[13]  P. van der Harst,et al.  Right Ventricular Function After Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated With Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (from the Glycometabolic Intervention as Adjunct to Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction III Trial). , 2016, The American journal of cardiology.

[14]  G. Filippatos,et al.  Contemporary management of acute right ventricular failure: a statement from the Heart Failure Association and the Working Group on Pulmonary Circulation and Right Ventricular Function of the European Society of Cardiology , 2016, European journal of heart failure.

[15]  Harlan M Krumholz,et al.  Acute Myocardial Infarction in Women: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association , 2016, Circulation.

[16]  D. McManus,et al.  Decade-Long Trends (2001–2011) in the Incidence and Hospital Death Rates Associated with the In-Hospital Development of Cardiogenic Shock after Acute Myocardial Infarction , 2016, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[17]  Sigrun Alba Johannesdottir Schmidt,et al.  The Danish National Patient Registry: a review of content, data quality, and research potential , 2015, Clinical epidemiology.

[18]  G. Helft,et al.  Sex-related differences after contemporary primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. , 2015, Archives of cardiovascular diseases.

[19]  K. Denhaerynck,et al.  Sex-specific chest pain characteristics in the early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. , 2014, JAMA internal medicine.

[20]  G. Schuler,et al.  Gender differences in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II-trial , 2014, Clinical Research in Cardiology.

[21]  W. Qiu,et al.  Gender comparisons in cardiogenic shock during ST elevation myocardial infarction treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2013, The American journal of cardiology.

[22]  K. Fukuda,et al.  The challenges in the management of right ventricular infarction , 2013, European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care.

[23]  Fred S Apple,et al.  Third universal definition of myocardial infarction , 2012 .

[24]  Thomas D. Scott,et al.  Predictors of reperfusion delay in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention from the HORIZONS-AMI trial. , 2010, The American journal of cardiology.

[25]  C. Catalano,et al.  Right Ventricular Ischemic Injury in Patients With Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Characterization With Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance , 2010, Circulation.

[26]  J. Tijssen,et al.  Right ventricular dysfunction is an independent predictor for mortality in ST‐elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting with cardiogenic shock on admission , 2010, European journal of heart failure.

[27]  J. Gore,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 , 2009, Circulation.

[28]  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.

[29]  S. Pocock,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies , 2007, The Lancet.

[30]  F. Van de Werf,et al.  Effect of tilarginine acetate in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: the TRIUMPH randomized controlled trial. , 2007, JAMA.

[31]  B. Brodie,et al.  Comparison of late survival in patients with cardiogenic shock due to right ventricular infarction versus left ventricular pump failure following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction. , 2007, The American journal of cardiology.

[32]  Elliott M. Antman,et al.  Time Delay to Treatment and Mortality in Primary Angioplasty for Acute Myocardial Infarction: Every Minute of Delay Counts , 2004, Circulation.

[33]  M. Pfisterer Right ventricular involvement in myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock , 2003, The Lancet.

[34]  J. Hochman,et al.  Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: expanding the paradigm. , 2003, Circulation.

[35]  J. Goldstein Right versus left ventricular shock: a tale of two ventricles. , 2003, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[36]  H. White,et al.  Cardiogenic shock caused by right ventricular infarction: a report from the SHOCK registry. , 2003, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[37]  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.

[38]  W. O’Neill,et al.  Rapid hemodynamic improvement after reperfusion during right ventricular infarction. , 1995, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[39]  D. Hoffman,et al.  Left-to-right ventricular interaction with a noncontracting right ventricle. , 1994, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[40]  W P Santamore,et al.  Comparative significance in systolic ventricular interaction. , 1991, Cardiovascular research.

[41]  O. Nishiyama,et al.  Right and left ventricular oxygen metabolism in open-chest dogs. , 1982, The American journal of physiology.