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.

Contemporary optimal therapeutic strategy with escalation/de-escalation of temporary mechanical circulatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock and advanced heart failure in Japan

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

Temporary mechanical circulatory support devices: updates from recent studies

Trends in Mechanical Circulatory Support Use and Outcomes of Patients With Cardiogenic Shock in Japan, 2010 to 2020 (from a Nationwide Inpatient Database Study)

Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Heart Failure Complicated with Cardiogenic Shock

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

Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support after Cardiac Surgery

Mechanical circulatory support devices for elective percutaneous coronary interventions: novel insights from the Japanese nationwide J-PCI registry

Abstract 18298: 10-Year Trends of In-Hospital Outcomes of Patients That Underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Coronary Syndrome

Anticoagulation Medications, Monitoring, and Outcomes in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support

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

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

US trends of in-hospital morbidity and mortality for acute myocardial infarctions complicated by cardiogenic shock

Safety Of Mechanical Circulatory Support Use For Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock Among Octogenerians: A Nationwide Cohort Analysis Of United States

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

The Use of Mechanical Circulatory Assist Devices for ACS Patients with Cardiogenic Shock and High-Risk PCI

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

Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock patients

Temporary mechanical support in the peripartum patient as a bridge to postpartum recovery: A report of three cases

Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock during the peripartum period