Predictors of survival and ability to wean from short-term mechanical circulatory support device following acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

Abstract

Background:

Cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) portends a poor prognosis. Short-term mechanical circulatory support devices (MCSDs) provide hemodynamic support for patients with cardiogenic shock but predictors of survival and the ability to wean from short-term MCSDs remain largely unknown.

Methods:

All patients > 18 years old treated at our institution with extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation or short-term surgical ventricular assist device for AMI-CS were studied. We collected acute myocardial infarction details with demographic and hemodynamic variables. Primary outcomes were survival to discharge and recovery from MCSD (i.e. survival without heart replacement therapy including durable ventricular assist device or heart transplant).

Results:

One hundred and twenty-four patients received extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation or short-term surgical ventricular assist device following acute myocardial infarction from 2007 to 2016; 89 received extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation and 35 short-term ventricular assist device. Fifty-five (44.4%) died in the hospital and 69 (55.6%) survived to discharge. Twenty-six (37.7%) required heart replacement therapy (four transplant, 22 durable ventricular assist device) and 43 (62.3%) were discharged without heart replacement therapy. Age and cardiac index at MCSD implantation were predictors of survival to discharge; patients over 60 years with cardiac index <1.5 l/min per m² had a low likelihood of survival. The angiographic result after revascularization predicted recovery from MCSD (odds ratio 9.00, 95% confidence interval 2.45–32.99, p=0.001), but 50% of those optimally revascularized still required heart replacement therapy. Cardiac index predicted recovery from MCSD among this group (odds ratio 4.06, 95% confidence interval 1.45–11.55, p=0.009).

Conclusion:

Among AMI-CS patients requiring short-term MCSDs, age and cardiac index predict survival to discharge. Angiographic result and cardiac index predict ventricular recovery but 50% of those optimally revascularized still required heart replacement therapy.

Keywords

Myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock ECMO ventricular assist device mechanical circulatory support recovery

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Goldberg

Makam

Yarzebski

et al . Decade-long trends (2001–2011) in the incidence and hospital death rates associated with the in-hospital development of cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2016; 9: 117–125.

Stretch

Sauer

Yuh

et al . National trends in the utilization of short-term mechanical circulatory support: Incidence, outcomes, and cost analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 64: 1407–1415.

Ouweneel

Eriksen

Sjauw

et al . Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support versus intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69: 278–287.

Takayama

Truby

Koekort

et al . Clinical outcome of mechanical circulatory support for refractory cardiogenic shock in the current era. J Heart Lung Transplant 2013; 32: 106–111.

Hochman

Sleeper

Webb

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: 625–634.

Thiele

Zeymer

Neumann

et al . Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 1287–1296.

Burkhoff

Cohen

Brunckhorst

et al . A randomized multicenter clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device versus conventional therapy with intraaortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock. Am Heart J 2006; 152: 469.e1–e8.

Seyfarth

Sibbing

Bauer

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: 1584–1588.

Truby

Naka

Kalesan

et al . Important role of mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 48: 322–328.

10.

Takayama

Soni

Kalesan

et al . Bridge-to-decision therapy with a continuous-flow external ventricular assist device in refractory cardiogenic shock of various causes. Circ Heart Fail 2014; 7: 799–806.

11.

Kirklin

Naftel

Pagani

et al . Seventh INTERMACS annual report: 15,000 patients and counting. J Heart Lung Transplant 2015; 34: 1495–1504.

12.

Acharya

Loyaga-Rendon

Pamboukian

et al . Ventricular assist device in acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 67: 1871–1880.

13.

Dang

Topkara

Leacche

John

et al . Left ventricular assist device implantation after acute anterior wall myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: A two-center study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005; 130: 693–698.

14.

Chou

Bermudez

Kormos

et al . Permanent continuous flow left ventricular assist devices use after acute stabilization for cardiogenic shock in acute myocardial infarction. ASAIO J 2017; 63: e13–e17.

15.

Muller

Flecher

Lebreton

et al . The ENCOURAGE mortality risk score and analysis of long-term outcomes after VA-ECMO for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. Intensive Care Med 2016; 42: 370–378.

16.

Pöss

Köster

Fuernau

et al . Risk stratification for patients in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69: 1913–1920.

17.

Lee

Fang

Chen

et al . Associations with 30-day survival following extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction and profound cardiogenic shock. Heart Lung 2016; 45: 532–537.

18.

Chung

Tong

Sheu

et al . Short-term and long-term prognostic outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by profound cardiogenic shock undergoing early extracorporeal membrane oxygenator-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Int J Cardiol 2016; 223: 412–417.

19.

Fincke

Hochman

Lowe

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: 340–348.

20.

Basir

Schreiber

Grines

et al . Effect of early initiation of mechanical circulatory support on survival in cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol 2017; 119: 845–851.

21.

O’Neill

Schreiber

Wohns

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.

22.

O’Neill

Basir

Dixon

et al . Feasibility of early mechanical support during mechanical reperfusion of acute myocardial infarct cardiogenic shock. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2017; 10: 624–625.