Vasoactive pharmacological management according to SCAI class in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock

Background Vasoactive treatment is a cornerstone in treating hypoperfusion in cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction (AMICS). The purpose was to compare the achievement of treatment targets and outcome in relation to vasoactive strategy in AMICS patients stratified according to the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) shock classification. Methods Retrospective analysis of patients with AMICS admitted to cardiac intensive care unit at two tertiary cardiac centers during 2010–2017 with retrieval of real-time hemodynamic data and dosages of vasoactive drugs from intensive care unit databases. Results Out of 1,249 AMICS patients classified into SCAI class C, D, and E, mortality increased for each shock stage from 34% to 60%, and 82% (p<0.001). Treatment targets of mean arterial blood pressure > 65mmHg and venous oxygen saturation > 55% were reached in the majority of patients; however, more patients in SCAI class D and E had values below treatment targets within 24 hours (p<0.001) despite higher vasoactive load and increased use of epinephrine for each severity stage (p<0.001). In univariate analysis no significant difference in mortality within SCAI class D and E regarding vasoactive strategy was observed, however in SCAI class C, epinephrine was associated with higher mortality and a significantly higher vasoactive load to reach treatment targets. In multivariate analysis there was no statistically association between individually vasoactive choice within each SCAI class and 30-day mortality. Conclusion Hemodynamic treatment targets were achieved in most patients at the expense of increased vasoactive load and more frequent use of epinephrine for each shock severity stage. Mortality was high regardless of vasoactive strategy; only in SCAI class C, epinephrine was associated with a significantly higher mortality, but the signal was not significant in adjusted analysis.

[1]  G. Sinagra,et al.  [ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: what's new?] , 2022, Giornale italiano di cardiologia.

[2]  J. McMurray,et al.  2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. , 2021, European heart journal.

[3]  S. Fernando,et al.  Milrinone as Compared with Dobutamine in the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock. , 2021, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  W. O’Neill,et al.  SCAI shock classification in acute myocardial infarction: Insights from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative , 2020, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[5]  Brian Y. Chang,et al.  Impact of concomitant vasoactive treatment and mechanical left ventricular unloading in a porcine model of profound cardiogenic shock , 2020, Critical Care.

[6]  S. Blankenberg,et al.  Application of the SCAI classification in a cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock , 2020, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[7]  Dennis H. Murphree,et al.  Temporal Trends and Clinical Outcomes Associated with Vasopressor and Inotrope Use In The Cardiac Intensive Care Unit. , 2020, Shock.

[8]  T. Henry,et al.  Cardiogenic Shock Classification to Predict Mortality in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit. , 2019, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[9]  C. Bode,et al.  Epinephrine, inodilator, or no inotrope in venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation implantation: a single-center experience , 2019, Critical Care.

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

[11]  Bogdan Gadidov,et al.  Predictors of Mortality and Outcomes of Acute Severe Cardiogenic Shock Treated with the Impella Device. , 2019, The American journal of cardiology.

[12]  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.

[13]  J. Ornato,et al.  SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock , 2019, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[14]  Yaiza Beatriz Molero-Díez,et al.  Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction , 2019, Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology.

[15]  Timothy M. Koponen,et al.  Vasoactive‐inotropic score and the prediction of morbidity and mortality after cardiac surgery , 2019, British journal of anaesthesia.

[16]  Pieter Lagrou.  States , 2019, Europe’s Postwar Periods 1989, 1945, 1918.

[17]  Jeroen J. Bax,et al.  Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction (2018). , 2018, Global heart.

[18]  A. Mebazaa,et al.  Epinephrine Versus Norepinephrine for Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction. , 2018, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[19]  R. Bellomo,et al.  Epinephrine and short-term survival in cardiogenic shock: an individual data meta-analysis of 2583 patients , 2018, Intensive Care Medicine.

[20]  Marco Valgimigli,et al.  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). , 2018, European heart journal.

[21]  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.

[22]  E. Ohman,et al.  Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association , 2017, Circulation.

[23]  N. Zhang,et al.  Dopamine versus norepinephrine in the treatment of cardiogenic shock , 2017, Medicine.

[24]  A. Mebazaa,et al.  Current real-life use of vasopressors and inotropes in cardiogenic shock - adrenaline use is associated with excess organ injury and mortality , 2016, Critical Care.

[25]  A. Mebazaa,et al.  The Effectiveness of Inodilators in Reducing Short Term Mortality among Patient with Severe Cardiogenic Shock: A Propensity-Based Analysis , 2013, PloS one.

[26]  D. Atar,et al.  ESC Guidelines for the Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction in Patients Presenting With ST-Segment Elevation , 2013 .

[27]  L. Dušek,et al.  Baseline characteristics and hospital mortality in the Acute Heart Failure Database (AHEAD) Main registry , 2011, Critical care.

[28]  B. Levy,et al.  Comparison of norepinephrine-dobutamine to epinephrine for hemodynamics, lactate metabolism, and organ function variables in cardiogenic shock. A prospective, randomized pilot study* , 2011, Critical care medicine.

[29]  R. Porcher,et al.  Clinical presentation, management and outcomes in the Acute Heart Failure Global Survey of Standard Treatment (ALARM-HF) , 2011, Intensive Care Medicine.

[30]  J. Vincent,et al.  Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[31]  S. Magda,et al.  Comparison of Dopamine and Norepinephrine in the treatment of shock. , 2010, Maedica.

[32]  O. Desebbe,et al.  INCREASED AEROBIC GLYCOLYSIS THROUGH &bgr;2 STIMULATION IS A COMMON MECHANISM INVOLVED IN LACTATE FORMATION DURING SHOCK STATES , 2008, Shock.

[33]  Therapy Study Investigators,et al.  A comparison of epinephrine and norepinephrine in critically ill patients , 2008, Intensive Care Medicine.

[34]  A. Cohen-Solal,et al.  Levosimendan vs dobutamine for patients with acute decompensated heart failure: the SURVIVE Randomized Trial. , 2007, JAMA.

[35]  K. Huber,et al.  Predictors of survival in unselected patients with acute myocardial infarction requiring continuous catecholamine support. , 2002, Resuscitation.

[36]  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.