Mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: Challenges and importance of randomized control trials
Corresponding Author
Mir B. Basir DO
Cardiology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, USA
Correspondence
Mir B. Basir, DO, FSCAI, FACC, Director, Acute Mechanical Circulatory Support, Director, STEMI, Henry Ford Hospital, 2799 W. Grand Blvd, K-2 Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, Detroit, MI 48202.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorDuane S. Pinto MD
Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Search for more papers by this authorBoback Ziaeian MD, PhD
Cardiology, Riverside Medical Clinic, Chattaroy, Washington, USA
Search for more papers by this authorAkshay Khandelwal MD
Cardiology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJennifer Cowger MD
Cardiology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, USA
Search for more papers by this authorWilliam Suh MD
Cardiology, Riverside Medical Clinic, Chattaroy, Washington, USA
Search for more papers by this authorAndrew Althouse PhD
Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Mir B. Basir DO
Cardiology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, USA
Correspondence
Mir B. Basir, DO, FSCAI, FACC, Director, Acute Mechanical Circulatory Support, Director, STEMI, Henry Ford Hospital, 2799 W. Grand Blvd, K-2 Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, Detroit, MI 48202.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorDuane S. Pinto MD
Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Search for more papers by this authorBoback Ziaeian MD, PhD
Cardiology, Riverside Medical Clinic, Chattaroy, Washington, USA
Search for more papers by this authorAkshay Khandelwal MD
Cardiology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, USA
Search for more papers by this authorJennifer Cowger MD
Cardiology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, USA
Search for more papers by this authorWilliam Suh MD
Cardiology, Riverside Medical Clinic, Chattaroy, Washington, USA
Search for more papers by this authorAndrew Althouse PhD
Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Background
Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality.
Methods
We provide an overview of previously conducted studies on the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in the treatment of AMI-CS and difficulties which may be encountered in conducting such trials in the United States.
Results
Well powered randomized control trials are difficult to conduct in a critically ill patient population due to physician preferences, perceived lack of equipoise and challenges obtaining informed consent.
Conclusions
With growth in utilization of MCS devices in patients with AMI-CS, efforts to perform well-powered, randomized control trials must be undertaken.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mir B Basir is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Cardiovascular Systems, Chiesi, Procyrion, and Zoll. Duane S. Pinto is a consultant for Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, NuPulse CV, and Telefelex. Jennifer Cowger is a consultant for Abbott Vascular and Medtronic. William Suh is a consultant for Edwards. Boback Ziaeian, Akshay Khandelwal, and Andrew Althouse report no relevant discloses.
REFERENCES
- 1Kolte 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(1):e000590.
- 2Shah M, Patnaik S, Patel B, 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. Clin Res Cardiol. 2018; 107(4): 287-303.
- 3Strom JB, Zhao Y, Shen C, et al. National trends, predictors of use, and in-hospital outcomes in mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock. EuroIntervention. 2018; 13(18): e2152-e2159.
- 4Anderson ML, Peterson ED, Peng SA, et al. Differences in the profile, treatment, and prognosis of patients with cardiogenic shock by myocardial infarction classification: a report from NCDR. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013; 6(6): 708-715.
- 5Hochman 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(9): 625-634.
- 6Scholz 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; 39(13): 1065-1074.
- 7Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(14): 1287-1296.
- 8Ahmad Y, Sen S, Shun-Shin MJ, et al. Intra-aortic balloon pump therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2015; 175(6): 931-939.
- 9Unverzagt S, Buerke M, de Waha A, et al. Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; 27:CD007398.(3):https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007398.pub3.
- 10Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. CULPRIT-SHOCK investigators. One year outcomes after PCI strategies in cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379(18): 1699-1710.
- 11Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2013; 128(16): e240-e327.
- 12O'Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2013; 127: e362-e425.
- 13Ouweneel DM, Schotborgh JV, Limpens J, et al. Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta- analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2016; 42(12): 1922-1934.
- 14Sauer CM, Yuh DD, Bonde P. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use has increased by 433% in adults in the United States from 2006 to 2011. ASAIO J. 2015; 61(1): 31-36.
- 15Brugts JJ, Caliskan K. Short-term mechanical circulatory support by veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the management of cardiogenic shock and end- stage heart failure. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2014; 12(2): 145-153. https://doi.org/10.1586/14779072.2014.880051.
- 16Cheng R, Hachamovitch R, Kittleson M, et al. Complications of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for treatment of cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis of 1,866 adult patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014; 97: 610-616.
- 17Wilson-Smith AR, Bogdanova Y, Roydhouse S, et al. Outcomes of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory cardiogenic shock: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2019; 8(1): 1-8.
- 18Chamogeorgakis T, Rafael A, Shafii AE, Nagpal D, Pokersnik JA, Gonzalez-Stawinski GV. Which is better: a miniaturized percutaneous ventricular assist device or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for patients with cardiogenic shock? ASAIO J. 2013; 59(6): 607-611.
- 19Vallabhajosyula S, Prasad A, Bell MR, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use in acute myocardial infarction in the United States, 2000 to 2014. Circ Heart Fail. 2019; 12(12):e005929.
- 20Stretch R, Sauer C, Yuh D, Bonde P. National trends in the utilization of short-term mechanical circulatory support incidence, outcomes, and cost analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64(14): 1407-1415.
- 21Basir 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(6): 845-851.
- 22Basir 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(3): 454-461.
- 23Basir MB, Kapur NK, Patel K, et al. National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative Investigators. Improved outcomes associated with the use of shock protocols: updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 93(7): 1173-1183.
- 24Tehrani BN, Truesdell AG, Sherwood MW, et al. Standardized team-based Care for Cardiogenic Shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019; 73(13): 1659-1669.
- 25Taleb I, Koliopoulou AG, Tandar A, et al. Drakos SG shock team approach in refractory cardiogenic shock requiring short-term mechanical circulatory support. Circulation. 2019; 140: 98-100.
- 26Amin AP, Spertus JA, Curtis JP, et al. The evolving landscape of Impella use in the United States among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with mechanical circulatory support. Circulation. 2019; 141(4): 273-284.
- 27Thiele 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(13): 1276-1283.
- 28Seyfarth 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(19): 1584-1588.
- 29Ouweneel DM, Engstrom AE, Sjauw KD, et al. Experience from a randomized controlled trial with Impella 2.5 versus IABP in STEMI patients with cardiogenic pre-shock. Lessons learned from the IMPRESS in STEMI trial. Int J Cardiol. 2016; 202: 894-896.
- 30Ouweneel DM, Engstrom AE, Sjauw KD, et al. Experience from a randomized controlled trial with impella 2.5 versus IABP in STEMI patients with cardiogenic pre-shock. Int J Cardiol. 2016; 202: 894-896.
- 31Massetti M. Comparison of Standard Treatment Versus Standard Treatment Plus Extracorporeal Life Support (ECLS) in Myocardial Infarction Complicated With Cardiogenic Shock 2006. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00314847
- 32Ostadal P. ExtraCorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock (ECMO-CS). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02301819
- 33Thiele H. Extracorporeal Life Support in Cardiogenic Shock (ECLS-SHOCK) Trial. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03637205
- 34Banning AS, Adriaenssens T, Berry C, et al. The EURO SHOCK Trial: design, aims and objectives randomised comparison of extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) delivered after acute-PCI plus standard of care versus standard of care alone after acute PCI, in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and cardiogenic shock. EuroInterventions 2021; 16(15):e1227-e1236.
- 35Udesen NJ, Møller JE, Lindholm MG, et al. Rationale and design of DanGer shock: Danish-German cardiogenic shock trial. Am Heart J. 2019; 214: 60-68.
- 36Vallabhajosyula S, Prasad A, Sandhu GS, et al. Mechanical circulatory support-assisted early percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: 10-year national temporal trends, predictors and outcomes. EuroIntervention. 2019; 16(5):e1254-e1261. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00226.
- 37Berg DD, Barnett CF, Kenigsberg BB, et al. Clinical practice patterns in temporary mechanical circulatory support for shock in the critical care cardiology trials network (CCCTN) registry. Circ Heart Fail. 2019; 12(11):e006635.
- 38Nogueira RG, Jadhav AP, Haussen DC, et al. Thrombectomy 6 to 24 hours after stroke with a mismatch between deficit and infarct. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378(1): 11-21. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1706442.
- 39Jentzer JC, van Diepen S, Barsness GW, et al. Cardiogenic shock classification to predict mortality in the cardiac intensive care unit. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019; 74(17): 2117-2128.
