Childhood hypoglycemia: plasma glucose and renin response to deoxglucose for assessment of adrenal medulla responsiveness.

P. Sizonenko,L. Paunier,M. Vallotton,M. Terraz,D. Scholer-Markovic

1972-12-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Oncology Drug Discovery Applications Using the FMAT™ 8100 HTS System

Jennifer Y. Lee,S. Miraglia,Xiongwei Yan,E. Swartzman,S. Cornell-Kennon,J. Mellentin-Michelotti,C. Bruseo,D. France

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1087057102239668

2003-01-01

Journal of Biomolecular Screening

Abstract:High-throughput screening (HTS) for potential anticancer agents requires a broad portfolio of assay platforms that may include kinase enzyme assays, protein-protein binding assays, and functional cell-based apoptosis assays. The authors have explored the use of fluorometric microvolume assay technology (the FMAT™ 8100 HTS System) in three distinct homogeneous HTS assays: (1) a Src tyrosine kinase enzyme assay, (2) a Grb2-SH2 protein-peptide interaction assay, and (3) an annexin V binding apoptosis assay. Data obtained from all three assays suggest that the FMAT system should facilitate the implementation of homogeneous assays for a wide variety of molecular targeted and cell-based screens. (Journal of Biomolecular Screening 2003:81-88)
Complications and Outcomes in 39,864 Patients Receiving Standard Care Plus Mechanical Circulatory Support or Standard Care Alone for Infarct-Associated Cardiogenic Shock

Jan-Sören Padberg,Jannik Feld,Leonie Padberg,Jeanette Köppe,Lena Makowski,Joachim Gerß,Patrik Dröge,Thomas Ruhnke,Christian Günster,Stefan Andreas Lange,Holger Reinecke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13041167

IF: 3.9

2024-02-19

Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract:Background: Temporary mechanical circulatory support devices (tMCS) are increasingly being used in patients with infarct-associated cardiogenic shock (AMICS). Evidence on patient selection, complications and long-term outcomes is lacking. We aim to investigate differences in clinical characteristics, complications and outcomes between patients receiving no tMCS or either intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO) or Impella® for AMICS, with a particular focus on long-term outcomes. Methods: Using health claim data from AOK—Die Gesundheitskasse (local health care funds), we retrospectively analysed complications and outcomes of all insured patients with AMICS between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2017. Results: A total of 39,864 patients were included (IABP 5451; Impella 776; V-A ECMO 833; no tMCS 32,804). In-hospital complications, including renal failure requiring dialysis (50.3% V-A ECMO vs. 30.5% Impella vs. 29.2 IABP vs. 12.1% no tMCS), major bleeding (38.1% vs. 20.9% vs. 18.0% vs. 9.3%) and sepsis (22.5% vs. 15.9% vs. 13.9% vs. 9.3%) were more common in V-A ECMO patients. In a multivariate analysis, the use of both V-A ECMO (HR 1.57, p < 0.001) and Impella (HR 1.25, p < 0.001) were independently associated with long-term mortality, whereas use of IABP was not (HR 0.89, p < 0.001). Kaplan–Meier estimates showed better survival for patients on IABP compared with Impella, V-A ECMO and no-tMCS. Short- and long-term mortality was high across all groups. Conclusions: Our data show noticeably more in-hospital complications in patients on tMCS and higher mortality with V-A ECMO and Impella. The use of both devices is an independent risk factor for mortality, whereas the use of IABP is associated with a survival benefit.

medicine, general & internal
Factors associated with 30-day mortality in patients receiving mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock

M Bogerd,E J Peters,S Ten Berg,A M Griffioen,M J C Timmermans,M Meuwissen,L C Otterspoor,A E Engstrom,A P J Vlaar,R J M Van Geuns,J P S Henriques

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.1754

IF: 39.3

2024-10-30

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Introduction Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is often deployed in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS). Nevertheless, the mortality rate in these patients remains utterly high, around 50%. Purpose The aim of this study was to identify patient characteristics associated with 30-day mortality in patients receiving MCS for AMI-CS. Methods In the Netherlands, all patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are prospectively entered in the Netherlands Heart Registration (NHR). Additional data were retrieved for all CS patients between 2017-2021 in 14 Dutch hospitals, including MCS usage. Survivors and non-survivors amongst MCS treated patients were compared to identify patient characteristics associated with 30-day mortality. In addition, multivariate logistic regression analysis on imputed data was performed to quantify these associations in adjustment for confounders. Results MCS was deployed in 516 (23.3%) of all AMI-CS patients. MCS patients had a mean age of 64.2 (± 12.5) years and 74.6% were male. An intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was used in 49.0% of the patients. Impella, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and multiple devices were used in 18.2%, 13.2% and 18.4% respectively. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 55.0%. At baseline, MCS survivors were younger (62.8 vs 65.2, p=0.03), had diabetes less often (18.4 vs. 28.0, p=0.02), and presented with a higher mean arterial pressure (MAP) (77.9 vs. 71.7, p<0.01). An out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) preceded in 34.3% of the survivors versus 42.0% of the non-survivors (p=0.09). Survivors also had lower admission levels of lactate (5.0 vs. 7.8, p<0.01), glucose (12.1 vs. 15.2, p<0.01) and creatinine (94 vs. 115, p<0.01). Multivessel disease (MVD) was present less frequently in survivors compared to non-survivors (62.1% vs. 74.2%, p<0.01). In-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) occurred less often in survivors both prior to PCI (8.2% vs. 18.0%, p<0.01) and during PCI (22.8% vs. 34.6%, p<0.01). After multivariate logistic regression, higher age (OR 1.04, 95%CI: 1.02-1.05), resuscitation prior to (OR 2.11, 95 %CI: 1.09-4.09) or during PCI (OR 1.58, 95% CI: 1.01-2.47) and the presence of MVD (OR 2.07, 95% CI: 1.32-3.25) were independently associated with 30-day mortality in AMI-CS patients who received MCS. Conclusion In AMI-CS patients who received MCS, older age, the occurrence of an IHCA prior to or during PCI, and the presence of MVD were independently associated with an increased 30-day mortality.Figure 1.Table 1.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Timing of veno‐arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in patients with cardiogenic shock

Jonas Sundermeyer,Caroline Kellner,Benedikt N. Beer,Angela Dettling,Lisa Besch,Stefan Blankenberg,Ingo Eitel,Derk Frank,Norbert Frey,Tobias Graf,Paulus Kirchhof,Jannis Krais,Dirk von Lewinski,Norman Mangner,Sven Möbius‐Winkler,Peter Nordbeck,Martin Orban,Matthias Pauschinger,Can Martin Sag,Clemens Scherer,Carsten Skurk,Holger Thiele,Dirk Westermann,Benedikt Schrage

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.3498

2024-10-25

European Journal of Heart Failure

Abstract:Timing of veno‐arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA‐ECMO) support in patients with cardiogenic shock. eCPR, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation; MCS, mechanical circulatory support. Aims The optimal timing for implementing mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in cardiogenic shock (CS) remains indeterminate. This study aims to evaluate patient characteristics and outcome associated with the time interval between CS onset and veno‐arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA‐ECMO) implementation. Methods and results In this study, patients with CS treated with MCS at 15 tertiary care centres in three countries were enrolled. Patients treated with MCS were stratified into early (<2 h), intermediate (2–12 h) and delayed (≥12–24 h) MCS implantation by using the time interval between CS onset and MCS device implementation. Adjusted logistic and Cox regression models were fitted to assess the association between timing of MCS implementation, patient characteristics and 30‐day mortality. A total of 330 patients with CS treated with VA‐ECMO and/or microaxial flow pump were included in this study; 20.9% received early, 55.8% intermediate, and 23.3% delayed MCS. Although crude 30‐day mortality was slightly lower in patients with early MCS (58.1% vs. 64.7% vs. 64.3%), adjusted analyses showed no significant association between timing of MCS implantation and 30‐day all‐cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] for early vs. intermediate MCS: 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59–1.46, p = 0.74; HR for early vs. delayed MCS: 1.29, 95% CI 0.78–2.13, p = 0.33). Moreover, the incidence of complications, related and unrelated to MCS, did not differ significantly among groups. Conclusion In this exploratory study of patients with CS treated with MCS, the timing of device implantation within 24 h after CS onset was not associated with mortality. This supports a restrictive MCS approach, reserving its application for patients experiencing CS deterioration despite conventional therapy.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Complication Rates Of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support In Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

Eric Sheffield,Monte Scott,Christos P. Kyriakopoulos,Ethan Krauspe,Iosif Taleb,Derek K. Chang,Konstantinos Sideris,Omar Wever-Pinzon,Anwar Tandar,Matthew L. Goodwin,Eleni Tseliou,Rana Hamouche,Frederick G. Welt,Joseph E. Tonna,Thomas C. Hanff,Stavros G. Drakos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2023.10.079

IF: 6.592

2024-01-01

Journal of Cardiac Failure

Abstract:Introduction Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices are increasingly used for the management of patients experiencing cardiogenic shock despite a paucity of randomized controlled data on their clinical efficacy. Complications associated with these devices are a common, but poorly quantified, occurrence that may negatively affect outcomes in cardiogenic shock patients receiving tMCS. Objective We sought to evaluate complication rates in patients with cardiogenic shock who receive tMCS and compare complication rates between different tMCS devices. Methods Consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock managed at a tertiary academic medical center from May 2015 to December 2021 were retrospectively reviewed (N=1,162). Our final study cohort comprised patients who developed cardiogenic shock and received tMCS after admission to our institution (N=187). Primary outcomes studied were complications using STS-INTERMACS definitions: neurologic complications (ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack [TIA]), major bleeding events (type 3 and 4), and hemolysis, as well as acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) and vascular compromise requiring vascular repair or amputation. Chi-squared tests were used to compare complication rates. Results Our study comprised 187 patients of whom 55 received VA-ECMO, 72 intra-aortic balloon pump, and 60 percutaneous ventricular assist device (pVAD - 90% Impella CP, 6.6% Impella 5.5, 3.3% Impella 2.5) as first tMCS. Patients receiving VA-ECMO had a higher proportion of SCAI stage E and higher lactate prior to the initiation of tMCS (Table- Panel A). Our analysis showed a vascular complication rate of 20% for VA-ECMO vs 6.9% for IABP vs 5% for pVAD, p=0.015; neurologic complication rate of 12.7% vs 8.3% vs 5%, p=0.34; hemolysis rate of 22.2% vs 2.8% vs 36.7%, p<0.001; AKI requiring RRT of 25.5% vs 9.7% vs 13.3%, p=0.045; and major bleeding event rate of 85.5% vs 34.7%% vs 53.3%, p<0.001 (Table- Panel B). Conclusions Overall complication rates increased from IABP to pVAD to VA-ECMO. VA-ECMO patients experienced more vascular complications, AKI requiring RRT, and major bleeding; pVAD patients had more hemolysis while the risk of stroke/TIA was comparable among the tMCS groups. Whether the observed differences are related to the specific device type and/or the different degrees of severity of shock warrants further investigation.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Evaluating the efficacy and safety of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices in acute cardiogenic shock: A subgroup-specific systematic review

Arif Albulushi,Ahmed Tawfek,Hatim Al Lawatia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2024.102619

Abstract:Objective: This systematic review aims to assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in various subgroups of patients with acute cardiogenic shock, providing insights for personalized clinical decision-making. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search across major databases to identify studies that reported on the use of temporary MCS devices like TandemHeart, Impella, and VA-ECMO in acute cardiogenic shock. Special attention was given to subgroup analyses based on etiologies of shock, patient demographics, and comorbid conditions. Results: Our analysis revealed that while devices like TandemHeart and Impella offer significant hemodynamic support, their effectiveness and safety profiles vary across different patient subgroups. VA-ECMO demonstrated the highest flow rates and potential for mortality benefits but requires careful management due to associated risks. The lack of randomized controlled trials in specific patient subgroups highlights a gap in the current literature, underscoring the need for targeted research. Conclusion: The review underscores the necessity of a personalized approach in selecting temporary MCS devices for patients with acute cardiogenic shock, guided by specific patient characteristics and clinical scenarios. Future research should focus on addressing the identified evidence gaps through well-designed studies that provide robust subgroup-specific data, enabling clinicians to optimize treatment strategies and improve patient outcomes in this critical care context.
Ablation of the thyroid remnant and 131I dose in differentiated thyroid cancer.

S. Doi,N. Woodhouse

Clinical Endocrinology

Abstract:AIMS To compare the efficacy of remnant ablation following a single low dose (specific activity of 131I administered, 1074-1110 MBq) vs. a single high dose (mostly 2775-3700 MBq) of 131I in patients with differentiated thyroid cancer and to determine whether or not the extent of surgery influences outcome. METHODS Nineteen studies have reported the results of low dose 131I ablation. Of these, 11 met our criteria for a comparative analysis. Two additional cohorts of ours were added and these were analysed in two groups based on the extent of surgery (near-total [NT; Woodhouse1] vs. sub-total [ST; Woodhouse2]). There were 518 low dose and 449 high dose patients in all. RESULTS The average failure of a single low dose was 46 +/- 28% (SD). Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant advantage for a single high over a single low dose and a pooled reduction in relative risk of failure of the high dose of about 27% (P < 0.01). From this we estimate that for every seven patients treated one more would be ablated given a high rather than a low dose (assuming a low dose failure risk of 50%). Also, a significantly greater proportion of patients are ablated after a single high or low dose, if they underwent near-total as opposed to sub-total thyroidectomy (summary relative risk (RR) 1.4; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION High dose 131I is more efficient than low dose for remnant ablation particularly after less than total thyroidectomy. Results suggest that patients with differentiated thyroid cancer should routinely have a total thyroidectomy followed by high dose 131I (2775-3700MBq) for ablation of the remnant.
Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies

Christopher Jer Wei Low,Ryan Ruiyang Ling,Michele Petrova Xin Ling Lau,Nigel Sheng Hui Liu,Melissa Tan,Chuen Seng Tan,Shir Lynn Lim,Bram Rochwerg,Alain Combes,Daniel Brodie,Kiran Shekar,Susanna Price,Graeme MacLaren,Kollengode Ramanathan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-023-07278-3

IF: 38.9

2024-01-12

Intensive Care Medicine

Abstract:Cardiogenic shock is associated with high mortality. In refractory shock, it is unclear if mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices improve survival. We conducted a network meta-analysis to determine which MCS devices confers greatest benefit.

critical care medicine
Do DanGer-SHOCK-like patients benefit from VA-ECMO treatment in infarct-related cardiogenic shock? results of an individual patient data meta-analysis

Uwe Zeymer,Anne Freund,Matthias Hochadel,Petr Ostadal,Jan Belohlavek,Steffen Massberg,Stefan Brunner,Marcus Flather,David Adlam,Christian Hassager,Jacob E Moeller,Steffen Schneider,Steffen Desch,Holger Thiele

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjacc/zuae093

2024-09-01

Abstract:Aims: In a recent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, routine use of veno-arterial ECMO (VA-ECMO) did not improve outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), while a microaxial flow pump reduced mortality in a selected group of patients with AMI-CS in the DanGer-Shock trial. Methods and results: Individual patient data of patients included in four randomized clinical trials investigating the routine use of VA-ECMO in AMI-CS were centrally analysed. For the purpose of this sub-analysis, DanGer-Shock-like patients were analysed (STEMI only, presumed low likelihood of brain injury). The primary endpoint was 180-day all-cause mortality. A total of 202 patients (106 randomized to VA-ECMO and 96 to control) were included. There were no differences in baseline characteristics, angiographic and interventional features between the two groups. Mortality after 6 months was numerically lower with VA-ECMO between the groups [45% in VA-ECMO group vs. 51% in control group; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56-1.26], while major bleeding (OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.08-4.64) and peripheral vascular complications (OR, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.15-11.56) were increased with the use of VA-ECMO. Conclusion: In this exploratory subgroup analysis in patients with CS, STEMI, and a low likelihood of brain injury, there was no mortality benefit with the routine use of VA-ECMO. However, as indicated by the large confidence intervals, the statistical power was limited to draw definite conclusions.
Subanalysis of the PREPARE CS Registry

Dan M. Prunea,Eva Bachl,Lukas Herold,Sadeek S. Kanoun Schnur,Sascha Pätzold,Siegfried Altmanninger-Sock,Gudrun A. Sommer,Theresa Glantschnig,Ewald Kolesnik,Markus Wallner,Klemens Ablasser,Heiko Bugger,Eva Buschmann,Andreas Praschk,Friedrich M. Fruhwald,Albrecht Schmidt,Dirk von Lewinski,Gabor G. Toth

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061552

IF: 3.9

2024-03-09

Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract:(1) Background: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in myocardial infarction-associated cardiogenic shock is subject to debate. This analysis aims to elucidate the impact of MCS's timing on patient outcomes, based on data from the PREPARE CS registry. (2) Methods: The PREPARE CS prospective registry includes patients who experienced cardiogenic shock (SCAI classes C–E) and were subsequently referred for cardiac catheterization. Our present analysis included a subset of this registry, in whom MCS was used and who underwent coronary intervention due to myocardial infarction. Patients were categorized into an Upfront group and a Procedural group, depending on the timing of MCS's introduction in relation to their PCI. The endpoint was in-hospital mortality. (3) Results: In total, 71 patients were included. MCS was begun prior to PCI in 33 (46%) patients (Upfront), whereas 38 (54%) received MCS during or after the initiation of PCI (Procedural). The groups' baseline characteristics and hemodynamic parameters were comparable. The Upfront group had a higher utilization of the Impella® device compared to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (67% vs. 33%), while the Procedural group exhibited a balanced use of both (50% vs. 50%). Most patients suffered from multi-vessel disease in both groups (82% vs. 84%, respectively; p = 0.99), and most patients required a complex PCI procedure; the latter was more prevalent in the Upfront group (94% vs. 71%, respectively; p = 0.02). Their rates of complete revascularization were comparable (52% vs. 34%, respectively; p = 0.16). Procedural CPR was significantly more frequent in the Procedural group (45% vs. 79%, p < 0.05); however, in-hospital mortality was similar (61% vs. 79%, respectively; p = 0.12). (4) Conclusions: The upfront implantation of MCS in myocardial infarction-associated CS did not provide an in-hospital survival benefit.

medicine, general & internal
Scrutinizing mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock: Have we jumped the gun?

Enzo Lüsebrink,Hugo Lanz,Holger Thiele

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-04853-y

IF: 15.1

2024-03-17

Critical Care

Abstract:Despite increasing therapeutic options and disposable resources, cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a formidable condition with high mortality. Today, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and microaxial flow devices (Impella, Abiomed, Danvers, USA) are established forms of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in CS, with increasing application over the years. Despite this trend, incorporation into current ESC (Class IIa, evidence C) and AHA/ACC (Class IIa, evidence B-NR) guidelines is based nearly exclusively on observational results. Despite these recommendations and increasing application, current evidence from randomized controlled trials has not provided clear mortality benefit. Thus, reflection on current evidence is hereby justified.

critical care medicine
Trends and outcomes of different mechanical circulatory support modalities for acute myocardial infarction associated cardiogenic shock in patients undergoing early revascularization

Shafaqat Ali,Manoj Kumar,Irisha Badu,Faryal Farooq,Thannon Alsaeed,Muhammad Sultan,Lalitsiri Atti,Sanchit Duhan,Pratik Agrawal,Vijaywant Brar,Tarek Helmy,Taher Tayeb

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahjo.2024.100468

2024-09-30

Abstract:Background: The use of Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS) devices in cardiogenic shock (CS) is growing. However, the recent trends in using different MCS modalities and their outcomes in acute myocardial infarction associated CS (AMI-CS) are unknown. Methods: The national readmission database (2016-2020) was used to identify AMI-CS requiring MCS. Cohorts were stratified as ECMO compared to Impella. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to remove confounding factors. Pearson's x2 test was applied to matched cohorts to compare outcomes. We used multivariate regression and reported predictive margins for adjusted trend analysis. Results: Among 20,950 AMI-CS hospitalizations requiring MCS, 19,628 (93.7 %) received Impella vs 1322 (6.3 %) were placed only on ECMO. ECMO group was younger (median age: 61 vs. 68 years, p < 0.001) and had a lower comorbidity burden. On propensity-matched cohorts (N 742), the ECMO cohort had higher adverse events, including mortality (51.6 % vs. 41.5 %), sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) (40.9 % vs. 31.8 %), acute stroke (9.2 % vs. 4.6 %) and major bleeding (16 % vs 12.2 %) [p < 0.05]. However, comparing ECPELLA (ECMO + Impella) to Impella alone, mortality (46.2 % vs. 39.4 %) and SCA (44 % vs. 36.4 %) rates were similar, though major bleeding was higher (18.2 % vs. 9.8 %). From 2016 to 2020, mortality trends for AMI-CS in the U.S. showed no significant change (p-trend: 0.071). Conclusion: Despite advances in MCS modalities, the overall mortality rate for AMI-CS remains unchanged. ECMO use without LV unloading showed higher mortality and adverse events compared to Impella. Prospective studies are needed to verify these findings.
Early vs. Delayed Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Kevin G Buda,Katarzyna Hryniewicz,Peter M Eckman,Mir B Basir,Jennifer A Cowger,Khaldoon Alaswad,Srini Mukundan,Yader Sandoval,Andrea Elliott,Emmanouil S Brilakis,Michael S Megaly

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjacc/zuae034

2024-03-19

Abstract:Abstract Background Despite increased temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) utilization for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), data regarding efficacy and optimal timing for tMCS support are limited. This study aimed to describe outcomes based on tMCS timing in AMI-CS and to identify predictors of 30-day mortality and readmission. Methods Patients with AMI-CS identified in the National Readmissions Database were grouped according to the use of tMCS and early (<24 hours) vs. delayed (≥24 hours) tMCS. The correlation between tMCS timing and inpatient outcomes was evaluated using linear regression. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with 30-day mortality and readmission. Results Of 294,839 patients with AMI-CS, 109,148 patients were supported with tMCS (8,067 veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, 33,577 Impella, and 79,161 intra-aortic balloon pump). Of patients requiring tMCS, patients who received early tMCS (n = 79,906) had shorter lengths of stay (7 days vs. 15 days, p < 0.001) and lower rates of ischemic and bleeding complications than those with delayed tMCS (n = 32,241). Patients requiring tMCS had higher in-hospital mortality (OR [95% CI]) (1.7 [1.7-1.8], p < 0.001). Among patients requiring tMCS, early support was associated with fewer complications, lower mortality (0.90 [0.85-0.94], p < 0.001), and fewer 30-day readmissions (0.91 [0.85-0.97], p = 0.005) compared to patients with delayed tMCS. Conclusion Among patients receiving tMCS for AMI-CS, early tMCS was associated with fewer complications, shorter lengths of stay, lower hospital costs, and fewer deaths and readmissions at 30 days.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Haemodynamic support with percutaneous devices in patients with cardiogenic shock: the current evidence of mechanical circulatory support

Fatima Kayali,Tiffany Agbobu,Thurkga Moothathamby,Yousif F Jubouri,Matti Jubouri,Amr Abdelhaliem,Samuel N S Ghattas,Samuel S S Rezk,Damian M Bailey,Ian M Williams,Wael I Awad,Mohamad Bashir

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2024.2380330

Abstract:Introduction: 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. Areas covered: 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. Expert opinion: 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.
Current Landscape of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Heart-Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock

Panayotis K. Vlachakis,Panagiotis Theofilis,Ioannis Leontsinis,Maria Drakopoulou,Paschalis Karakasis,Evangelos Oikonomou,Christina Chrysohoou,Konstantinos Tsioufis,Dimitris Tousoulis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13144120

IF: 3.9

2024-07-15

Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract:Acute heart failure (HF) presents a significant mortality burden, necessitating continuous therapeutic advancements. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is crucial in managing cardiogenic shock (CS) secondary to acute HF, serving as a bridge to recovery or durable support. Currently, MCS options include the Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP), TandemHeart (TH), Impella, and Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VA-ECMO), each offering unique benefits and risks tailored to patient-specific factors and clinical scenarios. This review examines the clinical implications of recent advancements in temporary MCS, identifies knowledge gaps, and explores promising avenues for future research and clinical application. Understanding each device's unique attributes is crucial for their efficient implementation in various clinical scenarios, ultimately advancing towards intelligent, personalized support strategies.

medicine, general & internal
Short-term mechanical circulatory support in adults with congenital heart disease: indications and outcomes

Z Abdulelah,A Constantine,G Zuanetti,P Frederiks,G Guglielmi,A Hoschtitzky,D Shore,T C Aw,K Dimopoulos,P Bianchi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.2151

IF: 39.3

2024-10-30

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Background An increasing number of adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD) present with heart failure (HF), which may require short- or long-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS), often around cardiac surgery or other interventions. Even though MCS has entered ACHD practice over the last few years, little is known on its indications and outcomes in this population. Purpose To assess the use and outcomes of short-term MCS in ACHD patients in a specialist centre, and assess the predictive power of the Survival After Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (SAVE) score in this population. Methods Data on all ACHD patients who received MCS since 2008 in a single tertiary centre were collected. Immediate, short and longer-term outcomes were also collected, including death, complications, and weaning success. Logistic regression and ROC analysis were performed to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality. Result There were 65 episodes of MCS in 63 patients during the study period: age 36.9+-13.6 years, 61.5% male. Most patients had CHD of moderate or severe complexity (49.2% moderate and 10.8% severe according to ESC guidelines). The most common anatomical diagnoses were left outflow tract obstruction in 35.4%, Marfan syndrome in 20.0% and tetralogy of Fallot or pulmonary atresia in 10.8%. The most common indications for ECMO were perioperative support (not endocarditis) in 55.6%, HF in 14.3%, pneumonia in 12.7% and endocarditis-related surgery in 7.9%. A critical preoperative status was present in 26.8%; median PEACH score (a validated ACHD peri-operative risk score) was 1.0[1.0-3.0] and ACHS score was 0.6[0.6-1.0]. Median SAVE score was -4.0[-9.0–2.0], with 21(43.8%) in SAVE class 4 or 5. VA-ECMO was used in 69.2%, VV-ECMO in 21.5%, BiVAD-ECMO in 4.6% and RVAD support in 4.6% of patients. The median duration of ECMO support was 198.6[133.0-354.2] hours. Complications included ischemic stroke (15.4%), intracerebral bleeding (9.2%), and other thromboembolism (23.8%). Successful weaning was achieved in 56.2%, whereas 4.6% were switched to more definitive MCS. In-hospital mortality was 47.7%, and this was higher in patients receiving VA support (OR 4.92, 95%CI:1.32-23.93, p=0.03). For patients on VA-ECMO or BiVAD support, the presence of Marfan syndrome (OR 4.92, 95%CI:1.32-23.93, p=0.03) and a lower (worse) SAVE score (OR 1.3 per point reduction, 95%CI:1.11-1.59, p=0.004) were associated with in-hospital mortality. An adjusted SAVE score that accounted for the presence of heritable thoracic aortic diseases (HTAD, -3 points) performed well at predicting in-hospital mortality (AUC increasing from 0.73 to 0.8, Figure). Conclusions Short-term MCS is a useful temporary rescue intervention in patients with ACHD, as a bridge to recovery or durable support, with 1 in 2 patients surviving to hospital discharge. The SAVE score adjusted for HTAD can reliably predict outcomes in patients with VA-ECMO and requires external validation.Figure

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support and survival in patients resuscitated from Out of Hospital cardiac arrest: A study from the CARES surveillance group

Julie Tram,Andrew Pressman,Nai-Wei Chen,David A Berger,Joseph Miller,Robert D Welch,Joshua C Reynolds,James Pribble,Ivan Hanson,Robert Swor,David A. Berger,Robert D. Welch,Joshua C. Reynolds

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.10.046

IF: 6.251

2021-01-01

Resuscitation

Abstract:<h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Introduction</h3><p>Maintenance of cardiac function is required for successful outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Cardiac function can be augmented using a mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device, most commonly an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or Impella®.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Objective</h3><p>Our objective is to assess whether the use of a MCS is associated with improved survival in patients resuscitated from OHCA in Michigan.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Methods</h3><p>We matched cardiac arrest cases during 2014-2017 from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES) in Michigan and the Michigan Inpatient Database (MIDB) using probabilistic linkage. Multilevel logistic regression tested the association between MCS and the primary outcome of survival to hospital discharge.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Results</h3><p>A total of 3,790 CARES cases were matched with the MIDB and 1,131 (29.8%) survived to hospital discharge. A small number were treated with MCS, an IABP (n = 183) or Impella® (n = 50). IABP use was associated with an improved outcome (unadjusted OR = 2.16, 95%CI [1.59, 2.93]), while use of Impella® approached significance (OR = 1.72, 95% CI [0.96, 3.06]). Use of MCS was associated with improved outcome (unadjusted OR = 2.07, 95% CI [1.55, 2.77]). In a multivariable model, MCS use was no longer independently associated with improved outcome (OR<sub>adj</sub> = 0.95, 95% CI [0.69, 1.31]). In the subset of subjects with cardiogenic shock (N = 725), MCS was associated with improved survival in univariate ( unadjusted OR = 1.84, 95% CI [1.24, 2.73]) but not multi-variable modeling (OR<sub>adj</sub> = 1.14, 95% CI [0.74, 1.77]).</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Conclusion</h3><p>Use of MCS was infrequent in patients resuscitated from OHCA and was not independently associated with improvement in post arrest survival after adjusting for covariates.</p>

emergency medicine,critical care medicine
Scrutinizing the Role of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Has Clinical Practice Outpaced the Evidence?

Enzo Lüsebrink,Leonhard Binzenhöfer,Daniel Hering,Laura Villegas Sierra,Benedikt Schrage,Clemens Scherer,Walter S. Speidl,Aitor Uribarri,Manel Sabate,Marko Noc,Elena Sandoval,Andrejs Erglis,Federico Pappalardo,Frederic De Roeck,Guido Tavazzi,Jordi Riera,Roberto Roncon-Albuquerque,Benjamin Meder,Peter Luedike,Tienush Rassaf,Jörg Hausleiter,Christian Hagl,Sebastian Zimmer,Dirk Westermann,Alain Combes,Uwe Zeymer,Steffen Massberg,Andreas Schäfer,Martin Orban,Holger Thiele

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.123.067087

IF: 37.8

2024-03-26

Circulation

Abstract:The use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for temporary mechanical circulatory support in various clinical scenarios has been increasing consistently, despite the lack of sufficient evidence regarding its benefit and safety from adequately powered randomized controlled trials. Although the ARREST trial (Advanced Reperfusion Strategies for Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation) and a secondary analysis of the PRAGUE OHCA trial (Prague Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) provided some evidence in favor of VA-ECMO in the setting of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the INCEPTION trial (Early Initiation of Extracorporeal Life Support in Refractory Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) has not found a relevant improvement of short-term mortality with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In addition, the results of the recently published ECLS-SHOCK trial (Extracorporeal Life Support in Cardiogenic Shock) and ECMO-CS trial (Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock) discourage the routine use of VA-ECMO in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock. Ongoing clinical trials (ANCHOR [Assessment of ECMO in Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock, NCT04184635], REVERSE [Impella CP With VA ECMO for Cardiogenic Shock, NCT03431467], UNLOAD ECMO [Left Ventricular Unloading to Improve Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock Patients on VA-ECMO, NCT05577195], PIONEER [Hemodynamic Support With ECMO and IABP in Elective Complex High-risk PCI, NCT04045873]) may clarify the usefulness of VA-ECMO in specific patient subpopulations and the efficacy of combined mechanical circulatory support strategies. Pending further data to refine patient selection and management recommendations for VA-ECMO, it remains uncertain whether the present usage of this device improves outcomes.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems,peripheral vascular disease
Predictors of Mortality in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock despite Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump: Opportunities for Advanced Mechanical Circulatory Support in Asia

Weiqin Lin,Alfred Chung Lum Yip,Robin Cherian,Siew Pang Chan,Lauren Kay Mance Evangelista,Novi Yanti Sari,Hwei Sung Ling,Yoke Ching Lim,Raymond Ching Chiew Wong,Benjamin Wei Liang Tung,Li-Ling Tan,Adrian F. Low,Anand Adinath Ambhore,Shir Lynn Lim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/life14050577

2024-05-01

Life

Abstract:Introduction: Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) mortality remains high despite revascularization and the use of the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). Advanced mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices, such as catheter-based ventricular assist devices (cVAD), may impact mortality. We aim to identify predictors of mortality in AMI-CS implanted with IABP and the proportion eligible for advanced MCS in an Asian population. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) stage C and above AMI-CS patients with IABP implanted from 2017–2019. We excluded patients who had IABP implanted for indications other than AMI-CS. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Binary logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for patient characteristics. Results: Over the 3-year period, 242 patients (mean age 64.1 ± 12.4 years, 88% males) with AMI-CS had IABP implanted. 30-day mortality was 55%. On univariate analysis, cardiac arrest (p < 0.001), inotrope/vasopressor use prior to IABP (p = 0.004) was more common in non-survivors. Non-survivors were less likely to be smokers (p = 0.001), had lower ejection fraction, higher creatinine/ lactate and lower pH (all p < 0.001). On multi-variate analysis, predictors of mortality were cardiac arrest prior to IABP (aOR 4.00, CI 2.28–7.03), inotrope/vasopressor prior to IABP (aOR 2.41, CI 1.18–4.96), lower arterial pH (aOR 0.02, CI 0.00–0.31), higher lactate (aOR 2.42, CI 1.00–1.19), and lower hemoglobin (aOR 0.83, CI 0.71–0.98). Using institutional MCS criteria, 106 patients (44%) would have qualified for advanced MCS. Conclusions: Early mortality in AMI-CS remains high despite IABP. Many patients would have qualified for higher degrees of MCS.

biology

Childhood hypoglycemia: plasma glucose and renin response to deoxglucose for assessment of adrenal medulla responsiveness.

Oncology Drug Discovery Applications Using the FMAT™ 8100 HTS System

Complications and Outcomes in 39,864 Patients Receiving Standard Care Plus Mechanical Circulatory Support or Standard Care Alone for Infarct-Associated Cardiogenic Shock

Factors associated with 30-day mortality in patients receiving mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock

Timing of veno‐arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in patients with cardiogenic shock

Complication Rates Of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support In Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices in acute cardiogenic shock: A subgroup-specific systematic review

Ablation of the thyroid remnant and 131I dose in differentiated thyroid cancer.

Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies

Do DanGer-SHOCK-like patients benefit from VA-ECMO treatment in infarct-related cardiogenic shock? results of an individual patient data meta-analysis

Subanalysis of the PREPARE CS Registry

Scrutinizing mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock: Have we jumped the gun?

Trends and outcomes of different mechanical circulatory support modalities for acute myocardial infarction associated cardiogenic shock in patients undergoing early revascularization

Early vs. Delayed Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Haemodynamic support with percutaneous devices in patients with cardiogenic shock: the current evidence of mechanical circulatory support

Current Landscape of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Heart-Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock

Short-term mechanical circulatory support in adults with congenital heart disease: indications and outcomes

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support and survival in patients resuscitated from Out of Hospital cardiac arrest: A study from the CARES surveillance group

Scrutinizing the Role of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Has Clinical Practice Outpaced the Evidence?

Predictors of Mortality in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock despite Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump: Opportunities for Advanced Mechanical Circulatory Support in Asia