‘Combat’ Approach to Cardiogenic Shock

Login or register to view PDF.
Abstract

The incidence of cardiogenic shock is rising, patient complexity is increasing and patient survival has plateaued. Mirroring organisational innovations of elite military units, our multidisciplinary medical specialists at the INOVA Heart and Vascular Institute aim to combine the adaptability, agility and cohesion of small teams across our large healthcare system. We advocate for widespread adoption of our ‘combat’ methodology focused on: increased disease awareness, early multidisciplinary shock team activation, group decision-making, rapid initiation of mechanical circulatory support (as appropriate), haemodynamic-guided management, strict protocol adherence, complete data capture and regular after action reviews, with a goal of ending preventable death from cardiogenic shock.

Disclosure
AGT has received consultant fees from Abiomed. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Correspondence
Alexander G Truesdell, Virginia Heart, INOVA Heart and Vascular Institute, 2901 Telestar Court, Falls Church, VA, 22042, USA. E: agtruesdell@gmail.com
Received date
26 December 2017
Accepted date
14 March 2018
Citation
Interventional Cardiology Review 2018;13(2):81–6.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15420/icr.2017:35:3

Considering the unacceptably high mortality rate of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) and the absence of widespread improvements in survival over recent decades, the time has arrived for the cardiovascular community to embrace a ‘combat’ approach to CS.1 In the past 20 years we have witnessed a revolution in the management of combat polytrauma towards a goal of zero preventable battlefield death. Specialists from diverse disciplines challenged assumptions, collected and analysed data, conducted actionable research, made incremental care changes, measured outcomes and then repeated this cycle over and over again. In the end, new products were fielded, new techniques refined and organisational innovations realised. Several thousand lives were saved and combat casualty care was rapidly modernised.2–5 Our multidisciplinary team at the INOVA Heart and Vascular Institute aims for similar success defeating our own enemy: CS.

Cardiogenic Shock

CS, ‘the rude unhinging of the machinery of life’, is a state of end-organ dysfunction, often complicated by a systemic inflammatory response syndrome, secondary to insufficient cardiac output despite adequate preload, as a result of left ventricular (LV), right ventricular (RV), or biventricular (BiV) dysfunction.6–9 This complex and often multifactorial pathophysiological process is defined by haemodynamic parameters – systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg, cardiac index <1.8 litre/min/m2 without pharmacological support (or >2.2 litre/min/m2 with support), LV end-diastolic pressure >18 mmHg or RV end-diastolic pressure >10–15 mmHg or pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) >15 mmHg – and clinical signs and symptoms of hypoperfusion, such as cool extremities, decreased urine output, and altered mental status.9,10

Following the uniform adoption of early revascularisation for acute MI (AMI), mortality rates for AMI CS decreased from near 90 % to <50 %.11–14 In the decades since, in-hospital survival rates have plateaued while the incidence of AMI CS and acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) CS has increased despite improvements in door-to-balloon times (the cardiovascular specialist’s version of the surgeon’s ‘Golden Hour’) and adjunctive pharmacotherapy.15–28 Early survivors also suffer unacceptably high rates of post-discharge heart failure, rehospitalisation and death.29–32

Revascularisation is necessary but not sufficient for survival in AMI CS. Contemporary meta-analyses suggest no survival benefit to an immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy compared with culprit vessel revascularisation in CS.33,34 Most recently, the randomised CULPRIT-SHOCK trial demonstrated a 7.3 % reduction in all-cause mortality rate at 30 days with a culprit-lesion-only PCI strategy versus immediate multivessel PCI in patients presenting with CS found to have multivessel coronary artery disease on angiography.25

Paradigm Shift

The fragility of critically ill patients with CS and multisystem organ dysfunction leaves little margin for error. The short-term stabilising effects of inotrope and vasopressor therapy are offset by adverse effects on afterload, oxygen demand, impaired tissue microcirculation, and arrhythmogenicity – translating into cardiotoxicity, end-organ dysfunction and higher mortality rates.35–40 The advent of rapidly deployable, user-friendly percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices may drive a paradigm shift in the treatment of CS: administration of circulatory and ventricular support to restore stable haemodynamics, minimise myocardial ischaemia, reduce native heart workload and maintain vital organ perfusion (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Cardiogenic Shock Pathophysiology and Management Considerations

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Figure 2: INOVA Cardiogenic Shock Diagnosis, Team Activation and Treatment Algorithm/Protocol

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Previous preclinical investigations demonstrated haemodynamic benefits to early LV unloading and initiation of ventricular and circulatory support for ADHF CS and AMI CS.36,41–49 More recent studies suggest LV unloading may reduce reperfusion injury, myocyte loss and myocardial infarct size, and activate cardioprotective mechanisms preventing adverse remodelling.50–53 This approach – similar to the ‘damage control’ strategies employed by combat trauma surgeons – prioritises normal physiology over normal anatomy to prevent cardiovascular collapse and lethal multiorgan dysfunction.5

The current clinical evidence in favour of MCS employment to combat CS consists only of observational data, meta-analyses and small feasibility trials. While these investigations demonstrate superior haemodynamics and improved organ perfusion with percutaneous MCS employment in AMI CS, they do not demonstrate any survival benefit with this strategy.54–59

More recently, small single-centre studies (most notably the Detroit Cardiogenic Shock Initiative), international registry data and our own local experience lend some support to the immediate haemodynamic and potential short-term clinical survival benefits of initiation of percutaneous axial flow LV to aorta support as soon as possible after the onset of shock.36,56,60–66 Other investigations, such as the recent IMPella versus IABP Reduces mortality in STEMI patients treated with primary PCI (IMPRESS) trial, suggest that the benefits of percutaneous MCS devices are time-dependent and unlikely to impact outcomes if employed late, once overt multiorgan dysfunction has occurred.67

Team Building

The INOVA Heart and Vascular Institute Cardiogenic Shock Initiative began in mid-2016 with the assembly of a diverse task force of clinical and administrative stakeholders across multiple disciplines to assess the current state of affairs, establish priorities of effort and assign ownership for these priorities.68–71 A detailed care pathway was proposed based on available scientific evidence. Graphics of our management algorithm (Figure 2) were posted in key work locations and laminated pocket cards distributed to hospital staff. Simultaneously, a 6-month-long training process focused on individual and team CS management skills, haemodynamic expertise, percutaneous MCS device insertion and management, team communication and dedicated protocol training. At the conclusion of our training and rehearsals, on 1 January 2017, the INOVA Cardiogenic Shock Team went live.

The INOVA Pathway

Our team selected five key areas of focus: rapid identification of shock (with early activation of our multi-specialty Shock Team and rapid collaborative decision making), early right heart catheterisation (to facilitate invasive haemodynamic-tailored therapy), expedited initiation of percutaneous MCS as appropriate (followed by early escalation as necessary), minimisation of vasopressor and inotrope use, and most importantly, meaningful patient recovery and survival.

The initial task of our team is the rapid identification of the shock state and assessment of its clinical severity via integrated clinical, laboratory, haemodynamic and imaging data.7,9,72 Immediate bedside echocardiography is used to assess cardiac function and identify potential causes of CS.73–77 While the indiscriminate use of right heart catheterisation in all-comers in the intensive care unit has proven ineffective, such detailed invasive haemodynamic data are essential for optimal management of CS, particularly when percutaneous MCS devices are used.78–84 In addition to typically measured parameters such as right atrial (RA) pressure, PCWP, systemic vascular resistance and cardiac output/cardiac index, our INOVA protocol further emphasises measurement of cardiac power output (CPO), RA:PCWP ratio and pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPi), all of which have recognised diagnostic and prognosticative power in the CS population.85–89

Protocol Implementation

Since initiating our INOVA cardiogenic shock programme in January 2017, there have been 161 team activations for AMI CS, ADHF CS and suspected or undifferentiated CS. Team activation occurs 24 hours per day, 7 days per week via a one-call process to a central operator at our Heart and Vascular Institute who gathers our five-person multidisciplinary team via either in-person or virtual (telephonic) bedside consultation. A consensus plan of care based on our protocol and established care priorities is developed and tailored to the specific clinical scenario.

In the cardiac catheterisation laboratory, we focus our institutional priorities on provision of axial flow percutaneous circulatory support and ventricular unloading prior to coronary reperfusion. For non-AMI aetiologies of CS, patients may instead require extracorporeal life support or urgent cardiac surgery. Decisions regarding sufficiency of support, need for escalation of support, and addition of right-sided or oxygenation support are made based on mandatory echocardiography and invasive haemodynamic reassessment prior to departing the bedside, angiography suite or operating room.

Although our protocol prioritises axial flow LV aortic assist devices, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is also commonly used at our centre in cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest and severe BiV shock requiring higher levels of circulatory support – usually with concomitant LV unloading to mitigate the deleterious effects of increased afterload.90–93 Not infrequently, patients may require various ‘plug-and-play’ combinations of device support – such as Bi-Pella (combined left- and right-sided Impella® axial flow catheter support) or EC-Pella (combined ECMO and left-sided Impella support) to overcome the limitations inherent to each device.93–99

In the cardiac or cardiothoracic surgery intensive care unit, patients are co-managed by a co-attending team of an intensivist and a cardiologist or a cardiac surgeon providing collaborative 24-hour care.100 Joint rounds are conducted daily in conjunction with other multispecialty consultants. Serial physical exams are performed; lactate levels, organ function markers and urine output are repeatedly measured; bedside echocardiography is performed and invasive haemodynamics are regularly assessed. This continuous tracking of standard haemodynamic parameters as well as CPO and PAPi facilitates our team’s decisions regarding MCS escalation, addition of right-sided cardiac support and device weaning (Figure 3). This pattern of assessment, adjustment, reassessment and readjustment mirrors the ‘unblinking eye’ of continuous cyclic battlefield intelligence collection, analysis and dissemination.68,101

Between 1 January 2017 and 28 February 2018, our team managed 161 patients with CS: 41 % (n=66) AMI CS and 59 % (n=95) ADHF CS. Average patient age was 61 years (64 years for AMI and 59 years for ADHF). A total of 70 % of patients were male (n=112) and 30 % were female (n=49). Our initiatives to date have resulted in progressively improving outcomes for AMI CS and ADHF CS with in an increase in all-comer survival rates at our institution from 47 % (n=110) in 2016, to 61 % (n=140) in 2017, and 81 % (n=21) in the first 2 months of 2018.102 These data support our hypothesis that team-based multidisciplinary care, haemodynamic guidance and early consideration of MCS improve survival in patients with AMI or ADHF CS.103 Our single-centre 18-month results (to include outcomes by shock aetiology, patient age, initial haemodynamics and time to treatment) will be reported in late 2018.

Figure 3: INOVA Mechanical Circulatory Support Escalation and Weaning Algorithm/Protocol

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Figure 4: INOVA After Action Case Review Form

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Figure 5: INOVA ‘Spoke and Hub’ Cardiogenic Shock Hospital Network

Open in new tab
Open ppt

Even when successful, these aggressive team interventions are costly and labour-intensive and may not be suited to facilities without 24-hour on-site multidisciplinary cardiac, surgical and critical care services and advanced heart failure therapies, such as permanent ventricular assist device and cardiac transplantation. Such hospitals are therefore better served partnering with larger institutions as part of a ‘spoke and hub’ model.104–108

After Action Reviews

Our cardiogenic shock team conducts novel cross-discipline meetings with clinical and non-clinical staff and leaders with 100 % case review. Data related to each shock patient (i.e. clinical presentation, objective data, hospital course, clinical outcomes) are collected and reviewed every 2 weeks. We modified the validated military after action review model, which was designed to critique training and combat events and answer four questions: What was planned? What really happened? Why did it happen? What can we do better next time? (Figure 4).109 Our roundtable process assesses compliance to our protocols, determines the effectiveness of our interventions and facilitates regular incremental changes in our care pathways as part of a continuous process improvement programme.

Future Perspective

Looking forward, in our region and across the US, new networks of partnered multidisciplinary care ought to emerge on a large scale to establish linked regional systems of community hospitals and large centralised centres of excellence emphasising rapid triage, immediate transport and expedited door-to-support for patients with CS, emulating the highly successful military and civilian trauma systems and the cardiovascular communities historical successes in early revascularisation for acute ST-elevation MI.1,104–108 Locally, having focused on our ‘hub’ medical centre (Figure 5) in 2017, we are currently expanding our protocol and process to our linked ‘spoke’ hospitals (both internal and external to our health system) in 2018.

Due to the heterogeneous patient population and multifactorial aetiologies of death in CS, demonstrating a survival benefit will be challenging. However, ongoing treatment analyses (and hopefully rigorously performed randomised controlled trials) may continue to improve our understanding of modes of death in CS, identify ongoing areas for performance improvement and inform future guideline development.66,103,110–114

Conclusion

Although hampered by small sample sizes and lack of long-term outcomes data, current registries and single-centre reports, to include our own preliminary experience to date, suggest that team-based multidisciplinary care, early initiation of MCS, and haemodynamic-guided therapy may form the next leap forward in CS care to interrupt the vicious triad of ischaemia, hypotension and myocardial dysfunction and allow for myocardial salvage and meaningful patient recovery. In our first year, our INOVA team has worked to develop a heightened awareness of CS and an organisational commitment to building a comprehensive system of CS care, research and innovation, focused on our combat medicine inspired goal of zero preventable death from CS. We hope other institutions will do the same.

References
  1. Truesdell AG. War on shock. J Invasive Cardiol 2017;29:E14–5.
    PubMed
  2. Kotwal RS, Montgomery HR, Miles EA, et al. Leadership and a casualty response system for eliminating preventable death. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2017;82:S9–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Kotwal RS, Montgomery HR, Kotwal BM, et al. Eliminating preventable death on the battlefield. Arch Surg 2011;146:1350–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Remick KN. Leveraging trauma lessons from war to win in a complex global environment. US Army Med Dep J 2016;2–16:106–13.
    PubMed
  5. Holcomb JB. Major scientific lessons learned in the trauma field over the last two decades. PLoS Med 2017;14:e1002339.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Gross SG. A System of Surgery: Pathological, Diagnostic, Therapeutic and Operative. Philadelphia, PA: Lea and Febiger, 1872.
  7. Hochman JS, Buller CE, Sleeper LA, et al. Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction--etiologies, management and outcome: a report from the SHOCK trial registry. Should we emergently revascularize occluded coronaries for cardiogenic shock? J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36(3 Suppl A):1063–70.
    PubMed
  8. Kohsaka S, Menon V, Lowe AM, et al. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome after acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:1643–50.
    PubMed
  9. Werdan K, Gielen S, Ebelt H, et al. Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J 2014;35:156–67.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Reynolds HR, Hochman JS. Cardiogenic shock: current concepts and improving outcomes. Circulation 2008;117:686–97.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Stead EA, Ebert RV. Shock syndrome produced by failure of the heart. Arch Intern Med 1942;69:369.
  12. Killip T, Kimball JT. Treatment of myocardial infarction in a coronary care unit. A two year experience with 250 patients. Am J Cardiol 1967;20:457–64.
    PubMed
  13. Goldberg RJ, Spencer FA, Gore JM, 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. Circulation 2009;119:1211–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK investigators. Should we emergently revascularize occluded coronaries for cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 1999;341:625–34.
    PubMed
  15. Wayangankar SA, Bangalore S, McCoy LA, et al. Temporal trends and outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions for cardiogenic shock in the setting of acute myocardial infarction: a report from the CathPCI registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016;9:341–51.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Shah R, Berzingi C, Mumtaz M, et al. Meta-analysis comparing complete revascularization versus infarct-related only strategies for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;118:1466–72.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. de Waha S, Fuernau G, Desch S, et al. Long-term prognosis after extracorporeal life support in refractory cardiogenic shock: results from a real-world cohort. EuroIntervention 2016;11:1363–71.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Kunadian V, Qiu W, Ludman P, et al. Outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock following percutaneous coronary intervention in the contemporary era: an analysis from the BCIS database (British Cardiovascular Intervention Society). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7:1374–85.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Davierwala PM, Leontyev S, Verevkin A, et al. Temporal trends in predictors of early and late mortality after emergency coronary artery bypass grafting for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 2016;134:1224–37
    PubMed
  20. Kalavrouziotis D, Rodés-Cabau J, Mohammadi S. Moving beyond SHOCK: New paradigms in the management of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Can J Cardiol 2017;33:36–43.
    PubMed
  21. Mandawat A, Rao SV. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiogenic shock. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2017;10:e004337.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Kolte D, Khera S, Aronow WS, et al. Trends in incidence, management, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock complicating ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the United States. J Am Heart Assoc 2014;3:e000590.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Menees DS, Peterson ED, Wang Y, et al. Door-to-balloon time and mortality among patients undergoing primary PCI. N Engl J Med 2013;369:901–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Kawaji T, Shiomi H, Morimoto T, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock due to acute pump failure. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2016; pii: 20488726166735;
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. PCI strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2017;
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Scholz KH, Maier SKG, Maier LS, 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. Eur Heart J 2018;
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Rathod K, Koganti S, Bilal Iqbal M, et al. Contemporary trends in cardiogenic shock: incidence, intra-aortic balloon pump utilisation and outcomes from the London Heart Attack Group. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2018;7:16–27.
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. Stretch R, Sauer CM, Yuh DD, et al. National trends in the utilization of short-term mechanical circulatory support: incidence, outcomes, and cost analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64:1407–15.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Shah RU, de Lemos JA, Wang TY, et al. Post-hospital outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;67:739–47.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Ezekowitz JA, Kaul P, Bakal JA, et al. Declining in-hospital mortality and increasing heart failure incidence in elderly patients with first myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:13–20.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Velagaleti RS, Pencina MJ, Murabito JM, et al. Long-term trends in the incidence of heart failure after myocardial infarction. Circulation 2008;118:2057–62.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Dunlay SM, Shah ND, Shi Q, et al. Lifetime costs of medical care after heart failure diagnosis. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2011;4:68–75.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. de Waha S, Jobs A, Eitel A, et al. Multivessel versus culprit lesion only percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 2018;7:28–37.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Zeymer U, Werdan K, Schuler G, et al. Impact of immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus culprit lesion intervention on 1-year outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results of the randomised IABP-SHOCK II trial. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2017;6:601–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Samuels LE, Kaufman MS, Thomas MP, et al. Pharmacological criteria for ventricular assist device insertion following postcardiotomy shock: experience with the Abiomed BVS system. J Card Surg 1999;14:288–93.
    PubMed
  36. Burkhoff D, Naidu SS. The science behind percutaneous hemodynamic support: a review and comparison of support strategies. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2012;80:816–29.
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Basir MB, Schreiber TL, Grines CL, et al. Effect of early initiation of mechanical circulatory support on survival in cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol 2017;119:845–51.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Overgaard CB, Dzavik V. Inotropes and vasopressors: review of physiology and clinical use in cardiovascular disease. Circulation 2008;118:1047–56.
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Dünser MW, Hasibeder WR. Sympathetic overstimulation during critical illness: adverse effects of adrenergic stress. J Intensive Care Med 2009;24:293–316.
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Rihal CS, Naidu SS, Givertz MM, et al. 2015 SCAI/ACC/HFSA/STS clinical expert consensus statement on the use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiovascular care. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;65:e7–26.
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Axelrod HI, Galloway AC, Murphy MS, et al. A comparison of methods for limiting myocardial infarct expansion during acute reperfusion--primary role of unloading. Circulation 1987;76:V28–32.
    PubMed
  42. Braunwald E, Sarnoff SJ, Case RB, et al. Hemodynamic determinants of coronary flow: effect of changes in aortic pressure and cardiac output on the relationship between myocardial oxygen consumption and coronary flow. Am J Physiol 1958;192:157–63.
    PubMed
  43. Maroko PR, Kjekshus JK, Sobel BE, et al. Factors influencing infarct size following experimental coronary artery occlusions. Circulation 1971;43:67–82.
    PubMed
  44. Meyns B, Stolinski J, Leunens V, et al. Left ventricular support by catheter-mounted axial flow pump reduces infarct size. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:1087–95.
    PubMed
  45. Smalling RW, Cassidy DB, Barrett R, et al. Improved regional myocardial blood flow, left ventricular unloading, and infarct salvage using an axial-flow, transvalvular left ventricular assist device. A comparison with intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation and reperfusion alone in a canine infarction model. Circulation 1992;85:1152–9.
    PubMed
  46. Remmelink M, Sjauw KD, Henriques JPS, et al. Effects of left ventricular unloading by Impella recover LP2.5 on coronary hemodynamics. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007;70:532–7.
    PubMed
  47. Cooper LB, Mentz RJ, Stevens SR, et al. Hemodynamic predictors of heart failure morbidity and mortality: fluid or flow? J Card Fail 2016;22:182–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Drakos SG, Kfoury AG, Selzman CH, et al. Left ventricular assist device unloading effects on myocardial structure and function: current status of the field and call for action. Curr Opin Cardiol 2011;26:245–55.
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. Burkhoff D, Sayer G, Doshi D, et al. Hemodynamics of mechanical circulatory support. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;66:2663–74.
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. Sjauw KD, Remmelink M, Baan J, et al. Left ventricular unloading in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients is safe and feasible and provides acute and sustained left ventricular recovery. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:1044–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Kapur NK, Paruchuri V, Urbano-Morales JA, et al. Mechanically unloading the left ventricle before coronary reperfusion reduces left ventricular wall stress and myocardial infarct size. Circulation 2013;128:328–36.
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. Kapur NK, Qiao X, Paruchuri V, et al. Mechanical pre-conditioning with acute circulatory support before reperfusion limits infarct size in acute myocardial infarction. JACC Heart Fail 2015;3:873–82.
    Crossref | PubMed
  53. Kloner RA, Schwartz Longacre L. State of the science of cardioprotection: challenges and opportunities--proceedings of the 2010 NHLBI workshop on cardioprotection. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther 2011;16:223–32.
    Crossref | PubMed
  54. Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, 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. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:1584–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  55. Lauten A, Engstrom AE, Jung C, et al. Percutaneous left-ventricular support with the Impella 2.5 assist device in acute cardiogenic shock: results of the Impella-EUROSHOCK registry. Circ Heart Fail 2013;6:23–30.
    Crossref | PubMed
  56. O’Neill WW, Schreiber T, Wohns DHW, et al. The current use of Impella 2.5 in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the USpella Registry. J Interv Cardiol 2014;27:1–11.
    Crossref | PubMed
  57. Thiele H, Sick P, Boudriot E, 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. Eur Heart J 2005;26:1276–83.
    PubMed
  58. Kapur NK, Paruchuri V, Jagannathan A, et al. Mechanical Circulatory Support for Right Ventricular Failure. JACC Heart Fail 2013;1:127–34.
    Crossref | PubMed
  59. Anderson MB, Goldstein J, Milano C, et al. Benefits of a novel percutaneous ventricular assist device for right heart failure: the prospective RECOVER RIGHT study of the Impella RP device. J Heart Lung Transplant 2015;34:1549–60.
    Crossref | PubMed
  60. Schroeter MR, Köhler H, Wachter A, et al. Use of the Impella device for acute coronary syndrome complicated by cardiogenic shock - experience from a single heart center with analysis of long-term mortality. J Invasive Cardiol 2016;28:467–72.
    PubMed
  61. Meraj PM, Doshi R, Schreiber T, et al. Impella 2.5 initiated prior to unprotected left main PCI in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock improves early survival. J Interv Cardiol 2017;30:256–63.
    Crossref | PubMed
  62. O’Neill W, Basir M, Dixon S, et al. Feasibility of early mechanical support during mechanical reperfusion of acute myocardial infarct cardiogenic shock. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2017;10:624–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  63. Lazkani M, Murarka S, Kobayashi A, et al. A retrospective analysis of Impella use in all-comers: 1-year outcomes. J Interv Cardiol 2017;30:577–83.
    Crossref | PubMed
  64. Flaherty MP, Khan AR, O’Neill WW. Early initiation of Impella in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock improves survival: a meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2017;10:1805–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  65. Basir MB, Schreiber T, Dixon S, et al. Feasibility of early mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the Detroit cardiogenic shock initiative. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2018;91:454–61.
    Crossref | PubMed
  66. Detroit Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (D-CSI). Available at: https://henryford.com/cardiogenicshock (accessed 26 March 2018).
  67. Ouweneel DM, Eriksen E, Sjauw KD, et al. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support versus intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:278–87.
    Crossref | PubMed
  68. McChrystal G, Collins T, Silverman D, et al. Team of teams: new rules of engagement for a complex world. New York: Penguin Publishing Group, 2015.
  69. Doll JA, Ohman EM, Patel MR, et al. A team-based approach to patients in cardiogenic shock. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2016;88:424–33.
    Crossref | PubMed
  70. Morrow DA, Fang JC, Fintel DJ, et al. Evolution of critical care cardiology: transformation of the cardiovascular intensive care unit and the emerging need for new medical staffing and training models: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2012;126:1408–28.
    PubMed
  71. Burzotta F, Trani C, Doshi SN, et al. Impella ventricular support in clinical practice: collaborative viewpoint from a European expert user group. Int J Cardiol 2015;201:684–91.
    Crossref | PubMed
  72. Forrester JS, Diamond G, Chatterjee K, et al. Medical therapy of acute myocardial infarction by application of hemodynamic subsets. N Engl J Med 1976;295:1356–62.
    PubMed
  73. McLean AS. Echocardiography in shock management. Crit Care 2016;20:275.
    Crossref | PubMed
  74. Oh JK. Echocardiography as a noninvasive Swan-Ganz catheter. Circulation 2015;111:3192–4.
    PubMed
  75. Lancellotti P, Price S, Edvardsen T, et al. The use of echocardiography in acute cardiovascular care: recommendations of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and the Acute Cardiovascular Care Assocaition. Eur Heart J 2015;4:3–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  76. Picard MH, Davidoff R, Sleeper LA, et al. Echocardiographic predictors of survival and response to early revascularization in cardiogenic shock. Circulation 2003;107:279–84.
    Crossref | PubMed
  77. Kaul S, Stratienko AA, Pollock SG, et al. Value of two dimensional echocardiography for determining the basis of hemodynamic compromise in critically ill patients: a prospective study. J Am Soc Echocardogr 1994;7:598–606.
    PubMed
  78. Hadian M, Pinsky MR. Evidence-based review of the use of the pulmonary artery catheter: impact data and complications. Crit Care 2006;10:S8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  79. Cohen MG, Kelly RV, Kong DF, et al. Pulmonary artery catheterization in acute coronary syndromes: insights from the GUSTO IIb and GUSTO III trials. Am J Med 2005;118:482–8.
    PubMed
  80. Sotomi Y, Sato N, Kajimoto K, et al. Impact of pulmonary artery catheter on outcome in patients with acute heart failure syndromes with hypotension or receiving inotropes: from the ATTEND registry. Int J Cardiol 2014;172:165–72.
    Crossref | PubMed
  81. Rossello X, Vila M, Rivas-Lasarte M, et al. Impact of pulmonary artery catheter use on short- and long-term mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock. Cardiology 2017;136:61–9.
    PubMed
  82. Sorajja P, Borlaug BA, Dimas VV, et al. SCAI/HFSA clinical expert consensus document on the use of invasive hemodynamics for the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2017;89:E233–47.
    Crossref | PubMed
  83. Atkinson TM, Ohman EM, O’Neill WW, et al. Interventional scientific council of the American College of Cardiology. A practical approach to mechanical circulatory support in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: an interventional perspective. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016;9:871–83.
    Crossref | PubMed
  84. Teuteberg J, O’Neill W. Association between the use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring and outcomes with percutaneous left ventricular support: a call for standardization? J Heart Lung Transplant 2017;36:S59.
    Crossref
  85. Torgersen C, Schmittinger CA, Wagner S, et al. Hemodynamic variables and mortality in cardiogenic shock: a retrospective cohort study. Crit Care 2009;13:R157.
    Crossref | PubMed
  86. Morine KJ, Kiernan MS, Pham DT, et al. Pulmonary artery pulsatility index is associated with right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device surgery. J Card Fail 2016;22:110–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  87. Fincke R, Hochman JS, Lowe AM, et al. Cardiac power is the strongest hemodynamic correlate of mortality in cardiogenic shock: a report from the SHOCK trial registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:340–8.
    PubMed
  88. Korabathina R, Heffernan KS, Paruchuri V, et al. The pulmonary artery pulsatility index identifies severe right ventricular dysfunction in acute inferior myocardial infarction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2012;80:593–600.
    Crossref | PubMed
  89. Mendoza DD, Cooper HA, Panza JA. Cardiac power output predicts mortality across a broad spectrum of patients with acute cardiac disease. Am Heart J 2007;153:366–70.
    Crossref | PubMed
  90. Napp LC, Kuhn C, Bauersachs. ECMO in cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock. Herz 2017;42:27–44.
    Crossref | PubMed
  91. Mourad M, Gaudard P, De La Arena P, et al. Circulatory support with extracorporeal membrance oxygenation and/or Impella for cardiogenic shock during myocardial infarction. ASAIO J 2017;
    Crossref | PubMed
  92. Abrams D, Reshad Garan A, Abdelbary A, et al. Position paper for the organization of ECMO programs for cardiac failure in adults. Intensive Care Med 2018;
    Crossref | PubMed
  93. den Uil CA, Jewbali LS, Heeren MJ, et al. Isolated left ventricular failure is a predictor of poor outcome in patients receiving veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Eur J Heart Fail 2017;19:104–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  94. Kuchibhotla S, Esposito ML, Breton C, et al. Acute biventricular mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock. J Am Heart Assoc 2017;6:e006670.
    Crossref | PubMed
  95. Pappalardo F, Schulte C, Pieri M, et al. Concomitant implantation of Impella on top of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may improve survival of patients with cardiogenic shock. Eur J Heart Fail 2017;19:404–12.
    Crossref | PubMed
  96. Lim HS, Howell N, Ranasinghe A. Extracorporeal life support: physiological concepts and clinical outcomes. J Card Fail 2017;23:181–96.
    Crossref | PubMed
  97. Patel S, Lipinski J, Al-Kindi SG, et al. Simultaneous venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and percutaneous left ventricular decompression therapy with Impella is associated with improved outcomes in refractory cardiogenic shock. ASAIO Journal 2018;
    Crossref | PubMed
  98. Engstrom AE, Cocchieri R, Driessen AH, et al. The Impella 2.5 and 5.0 devices for ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting with severe and profound cardiogenic shock: the Academic Medical Center intensive care unit experience. Crit Care Med 2011;39:2072–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  99. Truby LK, Takeda K, Mauro C, et al. Incidence and implications of left ventricular distention during venoarterial extracorporeal membrance oxygenation support. ASAIO J 2017;63:257–65.
    Crossref | PubMed
  100. Na SJ, Park TK, Lee GY, et al. Impact of a cardiac intensivist on mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock. Int J Cardiol 2017;244:220–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  101. Headquarters Department of the Army. The targeting process. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Training Management Directorate, 2010.
  102. Truesdell AG. “Combat” approach to cardiogenic shock. Presented at Cardiovascular Research Technologies, Washington, DC, USA, 3–6 March 2018.
  103. INOVA Cardiogenic Shock Registry (INOVA-SHOCK). Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03378739 (accessed 26 March 2018).
  104. Graham KJ, Strauss CE, Boland LL, et al. Has the time come for a national cardiovascular emergency care system? Circulation 2012;125:2035–44.
    Crossref | PubMed
  105. Nathens AB, Brunet FP, Maier RV. Development of trauma systems and effect on outcomes after injury. Lancet 2004;363:1794–801.
    PubMed
  106. Tchantchaleishvili V, Hallinan W, Massey HT. Call for organized statewide networks for management of acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock. JAMA Surg 2015;150:1025–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  107. van Diepen S, Katz JN, Albert NM, et al. Contemporary management of cardiogenic shock: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2017;136:e232–68.
    Crossref | PubMed
  108. Shaefi S, O’Gara B, Kociol RD, et al. Effect of cardiogenic shock hospital volume on mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock. J Am Heart Assoc 2015;4:e001462.
    Crossref | PubMed
  109. Headquarters Department of the Army. A leader’s guide to after-action reviews. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Training Management Directorate, 2003" target="_blank">PubMed
  110. French observatory on the management of cardiogenic shock in 2016 (FRENSHOCK). Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02703038 (accessed 26 March 2018).
  111. Danish cardiogenic shock trial (DANSHOCK). Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT1633502 (accessed 26 March 2018).
  112. Delmas C, Leurent G, Lamblin N, et al. Cardiogenic shock management: still a challenge and a need for large-registry data. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2017;110:433–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  113. Harjola V-P, Lassus J, Sionis A, et al. Clinical picture and risk prediction of short-term mortality in cardiogenic shock. Eur J Heart Fail 2015;17:501–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  114. Pöss J, Köster J, Fuernau G, et al. Risk stratification for patients in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:1913–20.
    Crossref | PubMed