Top

Open Access 20-11-2023 | Cardiogenic Shock | Original Paper

Association between left ventricular ejection fraction, mortality and use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock

Authors: Jonas Sundermeyer, Caroline Kellner, Benedikt N. Beer, Lisa Besch, Angela Dettling, Letizia Fausta Bertoldi, Stefan Blankenberg, Jeroen Dauw, Zouhir Dindane, Dennis Eckner, Ingo Eitel, Tobias Graf, Patrick Horn, Joanna Jozwiak-Nozdrzykowska, Paulus Kirchhof, Stefan Kluge, Axel Linke, Ulf Landmesser, Peter Luedike, Enzo Lüsebrink, Nicolas Majunke, Norman Mangner, Octavian Maniuc, Sven Möbius Winkler, Peter Nordbeck, Martin Orban, Federico Pappalardo, Matthias Pauschinger, Michal Pazdernik, Alastair Proudfoot, Matthew Kelham, Tienush Rassaf, Clemens Scherer, Paul Christian Schulze, Robert H. G. Schwinger, Carsten Skurk, Marek Sramko, Guido Tavazzi, Holger Thiele, Luca Villanova, Nuccia Morici, Ralf Westenfeld, Ephraim B. Winzer, Dirk Westermann, Benedikt Schrage

Published in: Clinical Research in Cardiology

Abstract

Background

Currently, use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock (CS) is predominantly guided by shock-specific markers, and not by markers of cardiac function. We hypothesise that left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) can identify patients with a higher likelihood to benefit from MCS and thus help to optimise their expected benefit.

Methods

Patients with non-ischaemic CS and available data on LVEF from 16 tertiary-care centres in five countries were analysed. Cox regression models were fitted to evaluate the association between LVEF and mortality, as well as the interaction between LVEF, MCS use and mortality.

Results

N = 807 patients were analysed: mean age 63 [interquartile range (IQR) 51.5–72.0] years, 601 (74.5%) male, lactate 4.9 (IQR 2.6–8.5) mmol/l, LVEF 20 (IQR 15–30) %. Lower LVEF was more frequent amongst patients with more severe CS, and MCS was more likely used in patients with lower LVEF. There was no association between LVEF and 30-day mortality risk in the overall study cohort. However, there was a significant interaction between MCS use and LVEF, indicating a lower 30-day mortality risk with MCS use in patients with LVEF ≤ 20% (hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.51–1.02 for LVEF ≤ 20% vs. hazard ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.85–2.01 for LVEF > 20%, interaction-p = 0.017).

Conclusion

This retrospective study may indicate a lower mortality risk with MCS use only in patients with severely reduced LVEF. This may propose the inclusion of LVEF as an adjunctive parameter for MCS decision-making in non-ischaemic CS, aiming to optimise the benefit–risk ratio.

Graphical abstract

Impact of left ventricular ejection fraction on mortality and use of mechanical circulatory support in non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock. Hazard ratio for 30-day mortality across the LVEF continuum, adjusted for age, sex, SCAI shock stage, worst value of lactate and pH within 6 h, prior resuscitation and mechanical ventilation during the index shock event. LVEF: Left ventricular ejection fraction; MCS: Mechanical circulatory support; HR: Hazard ratio; CI: Confidence interval.

Available only for authorised users

McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M et al (2021) 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J 42(36):3599–3726. https://doi.org/10.1093/EURHEARTJ/EHAB368 CrossRefPubMed

Baran DA, Grines CL, Bailey S et al (2019) SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: This document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 94(1):29–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.28329 CrossRefPubMed

Naidu SS, Baran DA, Jentzer JC et al (2022) SCAI SHOCK Stage Classification Expert Consensus Update: a Review and Incorporation of Validation Studies: This statement was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), American Heart Association. J Am Coll Cardiol 79(9):933–946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.01.018 CrossRefPubMed

Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG et al (2006) Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. J Am Med Assoc 295(21):2511–2515. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.21.2511 CrossRef

Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M et al (2017) PCI strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 377(25):2419–2432. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1710261 CrossRefPubMed

Thiele H, Ohman EM, De Waha-Thiele S, Zeymer U, Desch S (2019) Management of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: an update 2019. Eur Heart J 40(32):2671–2683. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz363 CrossRefPubMed

Schrage B, Becher PM, Goßling A et al (2021) Temporal trends in incidence, causes, use of mechanical circulatory support and mortality in cardiogenic shock. ESC Hear Fail 8(2):1295–1303. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13202 CrossRef

Osman M, Syed M, Patibandla S, et al. (2021) Fifteen-year trends in incidence of cardiogenic shock hospitalization and in-hospital mortality in the united states. J Am Heart Assoc. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.021061

Berg DD, Bohula EA, Van Diepen S, et al. (2019) Epidemiology of shock in contemporary cardiac intensive care units: data from the critical care cardiology trials network registry. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.005618/FORMAT/EPUB

10.

Shah M, Patnaik S, Patel B, et al. (2017) 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 107(4):287–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00392-017-1182-2

11.

Left ventricular unloading to improve outcome in cardiogenic shock patients on VA-ECMO—Full Text View—ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05577195. Accessed April 6, 2023

12.

Udesen NJ, Møller JE, Lindholm MG et al (2019) Rationale and design of DanGer shock: Danish–German cardiogenic shock trial. Am Heart J 214:60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2019.04.019 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Thiele H, Freund A, Gimenez MR et al (2021) Extracorporeal life support in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock—design and rationale of the ECLS-SHOCK trial. Am Heart J 234:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2021.01.002 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Schrage B, Beer BN, Savarese G, et al (2021) Eligibility for mechanical circulatory support devices based on current and past randomised cardiogenic shock trials. Eur J Heart Fail. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.2274

15.

Combes A, Price S, Slutsky AS, Brodie D (2020) Temporary circulatory support for cardiogenic shock. Lancet 396(10245):199–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31047-3 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Dhruva SS, Ross JS, Mortazavi BJ et al (2020) Association of use of an intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist device vs intra-aortic balloon pump with in-hospital mortality and major bleeding among patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 323(8):734–745. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.0254 CrossRef

17.

Burns S, Constantin N, Robles P (2018) Understanding the long-term sequelae of ECMO survivors. Intensive Care Med 44(7):1144–1147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-4714-3 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Schrage B, Becher PM, Bernhardt A, et al (2020) Left ventricular unloading is associated with lower mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: results from an international, multicenter cohort study. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048792

19.

Schrage B, Westermann D (2019) Mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiogenic shock and acute heart failure: current evidence. Curr Opin Crit Care 25(4):391–396. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCC.0000000000000629 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Jentzer JC, Wiley BM, Anavekar NS et al (2021) Noninvasive hemodynamic assessment of shock severity and mortality risk prediction in the cardiac intensive care unit. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 14(2):321–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2020.05.038 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Galderisi M, Cosyns B, Edvardsen T et al (2017) Standardization of adult transthoracic echocardiography reporting in agreement with recent chamber quantification, diastolic function, and heart valve disease recommendations: an expert consensus document of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imag. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 18(12):1301–1310. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jex244 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Bozkurt B, Coats AJS, Tsutsui H et al (2021) Universal definition and classification of heart failure: a report of the Heart Failure Society of America, Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, Japanese Heart Failure Society and Writing Committee of the Universal Definition. Eur J Heart Fail 23(3):352–380. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.2115 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Mor-Avi V, Lang RM, Badano LP et al (2011) Current and evolving echocardiographic techniques for the quantitative evaluation of cardiac mechanics: ASE/EAE consensus statement on methodology and indications endorsed by the Japanese society of echocardiography. Eur J Echocardiogr 12(3):167–205. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejechocard/jer021 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Mitchell C, Rahko PS, Blauwet LA et al (2019) Guidelines for performing a comprehensive transthoracic echocardiographic examination in adults: recommendations from the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 32(1):1–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2018.06.004 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Quartagno M, Grund S, Carpenter J (2013) jomo: a flexible package for two-level joint modelling multiple imputation. XX(i):1–24

26.

Schrage B, Dabboura S, Yan I et al (2020) Application of the SCAI classification in a cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 96(3):E213–E219. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.28707 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Schrage B, Weimann J, Dabboura S et al (2020) Patient characteristics, treatment and outcome in non-ischemic vs. ischemic cardiogenic shock. J Clin Med 9(4):1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9040931 CrossRef

28.

Picard MH, Davidoff R, Sleeper LA et al (2003) Echocardiographic predictors of survival and response to early revascularization in cardiogenic shock. Circulation 107(2):279–284. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000045667.11911.F6 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Harjola VP, Lassus J, Sionis A et al (2015) Clinical picture and risk prediction of short-term mortality in cardiogenic shock. Eur J Heart Fail 17(5):501–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.260 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Banning AS, Adriaenssens T, Berry C et al (2021) Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with cardiogenic shock: rationale and design of the randomised, multicentre, open-label EURO SHOCK trial. EuroIntervention 16(15):E1227–E1236. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-20-01076 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Basir MB, Lemor A, Gorgis S et al (2022) Vasopressors independently associated with mortality in acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 99(3):650–657. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.29895 CrossRefPubMed

32.

De Backer D, Biston P, Devriendt J et al (2010) Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock. N Engl J Med 362(9):779–789. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0907118 CrossRefPubMed

33.

Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, et al (2022) AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001063

34.

Levy B, Buzon J, Kimmoun A (2019) Inotropes and vasopressors use in cardiogenic shock: when, which and how much? Curr Opin Crit Care 25(4):384–390. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCC.0000000000000632 CrossRefPubMed

35.

Amin AP, Spertus JA, Curtis JP, et al (2020) The evolving landscape of impella use in the United States among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with mechanical circulatory support. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044007

36.

Taleb I, Koliopoulou AG, Tandar A et al (2019) Shock team approach in refractory cardiogenic shock requiring short-term mechanical circulatory support: a proof of concept. Circulation 140(1):98–100. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.040654 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Tehrani BN, Truesdell AG, Sherwood MW et al (2019) Standardized team-based care for cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol 73(13):1659–1669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.12.084 CrossRefPubMed

38.

Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ et al (2013) Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial. Lancet (London, England) 382(9905):1638–1645. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61783-3 CrossRefPubMed

39.

Fincke R, Hochman JS, Lowe AM, et al (2004) SHOCK Investigators. Cardiac power is the strongest hemodynamic correlate of mortality in cardiogenic shock: a report from the SHOCK trial registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 44(2):340–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.03.060

40.

Wu Y, Tian P, Liang L et al (2023) Afterload-related cardiac performance is a powerful hemodynamic predictor of mortality in patients with chronic heart failure. Ther Adv Chronic Dis. https://doi.org/10.1177/20406223231171554 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Mathew R, Di Santo P, Jung RG, et al (2021) Milrinone as compared with dobutamine in the treatment of cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 385(6):516–525. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2026845

Title: Association between left ventricular ejection fraction, mortality and use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock
Authors: Jonas Sundermeyer
Caroline Kellner
Benedikt N. Beer
Lisa Besch
Angela Dettling
Letizia Fausta Bertoldi
Stefan Blankenberg
Jeroen Dauw
Zouhir Dindane
Dennis Eckner
Ingo Eitel
Tobias Graf
Patrick Horn
Joanna Jozwiak-Nozdrzykowska
Paulus Kirchhof
Stefan Kluge
Axel Linke
Ulf Landmesser
Peter Luedike
Enzo Lüsebrink
Nicolas Majunke
Norman Mangner
Octavian Maniuc
Sven Möbius Winkler
Peter Nordbeck
Martin Orban
Federico Pappalardo
Matthias Pauschinger
Michal Pazdernik
Alastair Proudfoot
Matthew Kelham
Tienush Rassaf
Clemens Scherer
Paul Christian Schulze
Robert H. G. Schwinger
Carsten Skurk
Marek Sramko
Guido Tavazzi
Holger Thiele
Luca Villanova
Nuccia Morici
Ralf Westenfeld
Ephraim B. Winzer
Dirk Westermann
Benedikt Schrage
Publication date: 20-11-2023
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Cardiogenic Shock
Cardiogenic Shock
Shock
Shock
Published in: Clinical Research in Cardiology
Print ISSN: 1861-0684
Electronic ISSN: 1861-0692
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-023-02332-y

Webinar | 16-05-2023 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote Webinar | Spotlight on Cardio-Oncology

Watch now

An expert-led symposium exploring the most pertinent issues in cardio-oncology, with a focus on the new ESC guidelines. Highlights include preventative approaches in cardio-oncology, toxicity risk-stratification strategies, the clinical management of myocarditis as an adverse effect of immune checkpoint inhibitor-treatments, and the utility of biomarkers in long-term follow-up of cardiovascular disease risk in cancer patients.

Prof. Rudolf de Boer

Prof. Lorenz Lehmann

Dr. Teresa Lopéz Fernández

Keynote Webinar | Spotlight on Diet and Diabetes

Springer Medicine

Association between left ventricular ejection fraction, mortality and use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Graphical abstract

Keynote Webinar | Spotlight on Cardio-Oncology

Keynote Webinar | Spotlight on Diet and Diabetes

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Graphical abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Keynote Webinar | Spotlight on Cardio-Oncology