Acute Cardiovascular Care Association position statement for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: A document of the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association of the European Society of Cardiology
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2020
Acute Cardiovascular Care Association position statement for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: A document of the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association of the European Society of Cardiology
Most of the guideline-recommended treatment strategies for patients with acute coronary syndromes have been tested in large randomised clinical trials. Still, a major challenge is represented by patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted with impending or established cardiogenic shock. Despite early revascularization the mortality of cardiogenic shock remains high and roughly half of patients do not survive until hospital discharge or 30-day follow-up. However, there is only limited evidence-based scientific knowledge in the cardiogenic shock setting. Therefore, recommendations and actual treatments are often based on retrospective or prospective registry data and extrapolations from randomised clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction patients without cardiogenic shock. This position statement will summarise the current consensus of the diagnosis and treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock based on current evidence and will provide advice for clinical practice.
van DiepenSKatzJNAlbertNM, et al. Contemporary management of cardiogenic shock – a scientific statement. Circulation2017; 136: e232–e268.
2.
PonikowskiPVoorsAAAnkerSD, et al. 2016 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J2016; 37: 2129–2200.
3.
BaranDAGrinesCLBaileyS, et al. 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 of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). Catheter Cardiovasc Inter2019; 94: 29–37.
4.
AissaouiNPuymiratETaboneX, et al. Improved outcome of cardiogenic shock at the acute stage of myocardial infarction: A report from the USIK 1995, USIC 2000, and FAST-MI French Nationwide Registries. Eur Heart J2012; 33: 2535–2543.
5.
RathodKSKogantiSIqbalMB, 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 Care2018; 7: 16–27.
6.
ThieleHOhmanEMDeschS, et al. Management of cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J2015; 36: 1223–1230.
7.
JegerRVRadovanovicDHunzikerPR, et al. Ten-year incidence and treatment of cardiogenic shock. Ann Intern Med2008; 149: 618–626.
8.
RedforsBAngerasORamunddalT, et al. 17-Year trends in incidence and prognosis of cardiogenic shock in patients with acute myocardial infarction in western Sweden. Int J Cardiol2015; 185: 256–262.
9.
WayangankarSABangaloreSMcCoyLA, 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 Interv2016; 9: 341–351.
10.
HochmanJSSleeperLAWebbJG, et al. Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. JAMA2006; 295: 2511–2515.
11.
ThieleHZeymerUThelemannN, et al. Intraaortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Long-term 6-year outcome of the randomized IABP-SHOCK II Trial. Circulation2019; 139: 395–403.
12.
AlonsoDRScheidtSPostM, et al. Pathophysiology of cardiogenic shock: Quantification of myocardial necrosis, clinical, pathologic and electrocardiographic correlations. Circulation1973; 48: 588–596.
13.
ReynoldsHRHochmanJS.Cardiogenic shock. Current concepts and improving outcomes. Circulation2008; 117: 686–697.
14.
IbanezBJamesSAgewallS, et al. 2017 ESC guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. The Task Force for the Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction in Patients Presenting with ST-segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J2018; 39: 119–177.
15.
NeumannFJSousa UvaMAhlssonA, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J2019; 40: 87–165.
16.
RabTRatanapoSKernKB, et al. Cardiac shock care centers. J Am Coll Card2018; 72: 1972–1980.
17.
PössJKösterJFuernauG, et al. Risk stratification for patients in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Card2017; 69: 1913–1920.
18.
CecconiMDe BackerDAntonelliM, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med2014; 40: 1795–1815.
19.
FinckeRHochmanJSLoweAM, et al. Cardiac power is the strongest hemodynamic correlate of mortality in cardiogenic shock: A report from the SHOCK trial registry. J Am Coll Cardiol2004; 44: 340–348.
20.
HochmanJSSleeperLAWebbJG, 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 Med1999; 341: 625–634.
21.
HochmanJSSleeperLAWhiteHD, et al. One-year survival following early revascularization for cardiogenic shock. JAMA2001; 285: 190–192.
22.
ScholzKHMaierSKGMaierLS, 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 J2018; 39: 1065–1074.
23.
MehtaRHLopesRDBallottaA, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass surgery for cardiogenic shock and multivessel coronary artery disease?Am Heart J2010; 159: 141–147.
24.
WhiteHDAssmannSFSanbornTA, et al. Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting after acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Results from the Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) Trial. Circulation2005; 112: 1992–2001.
25.
ThieleHZeymerUNeumannF-J, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med2012; 367: 1287–1296.
26.
ThieleHAkinISandriM, et al. PCI strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med2017; 377: 2419–2432.
27.
ThieleHAkinISandriM, et al. One-year outcomes after PCI strategies in cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med2018; 379: 1699–1710.
28.
TousekPRokytaRTesarovaJ, et al. Routine upfront abciximab versus standard periprocedural therapy in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock: The PRAGUE-7 Study. An open randomized multicentre study. Acute Card Care2011; 13: 116–122.
29.
RatcovichHSadjadiehGAnderssonHB, et al. The effect of TIcagrelor administered through a nasogastric tube to COMAtose patients undergoing acute percutaneous coronary intervention: The TICOMA study. EuroIntervention2017; 12: 1782–1788.
30.
ZeymerUHohlfeldTvom DahlJ, et al. Prospective, randomised trial of the time dependent antiplatelet effects of 500 mg and 250 mg acetylsalicylic acid i.v. and 300 mg p.o. in ACS (ACUTE). Thromb Haemostasis2017; 117: 625–635.
31.
KanicVVollrathMPenkoM, et al. GPIIb-IIIa receptor inhibitors in acute coronary syndrome patients presenting with cardiogenic shock and/or after cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Heart Lung Circ2018; 27: 73–78.
32.
DroppaMVaduganathanMVenkateswaranRV, et al. Cangrelor in cardiogenic shock: A global, multicenter, matched analysis with oral P2Y12 inhibition from the IABP-SHOCK II Trial. Resuscitation2019; 137: 205–212.
33.
AsfarPMezianiFHamelJ-F, et al. High versus low blood-pressure target in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med2014; 370: 1583–1593.
34.
De BackerDBistonPDevriendtJ, et al. Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock. N Engl J Med2010; 362: 779–789.
35.
LevyBClere-JehlRLegrasA, et al. Epinephrine versus norepinephrine for cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Card2018; 72: 173–182.
36.
GrayAGoodacreSNewbyDE, et al. Noninvasive ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. N Engl J Med2008; 359: 142–151.
37.
MasipJPeacockWFPriceS, et al. Indications and practical approach to non-invasive ventilation in acute heart failure. Eur Heart J2018; 39: 17–25.
38.
ProndzinskyRUnverzagtSRussM, et al. Hemodynamic effects of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: The prospective, randomized IABP shock trial. Shock2012; 37: 378–384.
39.
ThieleHZeymerUNeumannF-J, et al. Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Final 12-month results of the randomised IntraAortic Balloon Pump in cardiogenic shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) trial. Lancet2013; 382: 1638–1645.
40.
WerdanKGielenSEbeltH, et al. Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J2014; 35: 156–167.
41.
SeyfarthMSibbingDBauerI, 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 Cardiol2008; 52: 1584–1588.
42.
OuweneelDMEriksenESjauwKD, et al. Impella CP versus intra-aortic balloon pump support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. The IMPRESS in Severe Shock trial. J Am Coll Card2017; 69: 278–287.
43.
ThieleHJobsAOuweneelDM, et al. Percutaneous short-term active mechanical support devices in cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur Heart J2017; 38: 3523–3531.
44.
BernardSAGrayTWBuistMD, et al. Treatment of comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with induced hypothermia. N Engl J Med2002; 346: 557–563.
45.
Hypothermia after cardiac arrest (HACA) Investigators. Mild therapeutic hypothermia to improve the neurologic outcome after cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med2002; 346: 549–556.
46.
LascarrouJBMerdjiHLe GougeA, et al. CRICS-TRIGGERSEP Group. Targeted temperature management for cardiac arrest with non-shockable rhythm. N Engl J Med. Epub ahead of print 2 October 2019. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1906661.
47.
FuernauGBeckJDeschS, et al. Mild hypothermia in cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: The randomized SHOCK-COOL trial. Circulation2018; 139: 448–457.
48.
HochmanJSBullerCESleeperLA, et al. Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction–etiologies, management and outcome: A report from the SHOCK trial registry. J Am Coll Cardiol2000; 36: S1063–S1070.
49.
FiguerasJAlcaldeOBarrabesJA, et al. Changes in hospital mortality rates in 425 patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction and cardiac rupture over a 30 year period. Circulation2008; 118: 2783–2789.
50.
Lopez-SendonJGonzalezALopezdeSaE, et al. Diagnosis of subacute ventricular wall rupture after acute myocardial infarction: Sensitivity and specificity of clinical, hemodynamic and echocardiographic criteria. J Am Coll Card1992; 19: 1145–1153.
51.
ElbadawiAElgendyIYMahmoudK, et al. Temporal trends and outcomes of mechanical complications in patients with acute myocardial infarction. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2019; 12: 1825–1836.
52.
BirnbaumYFishbeinMCBlancheCM, et al. Ventricular septal rupture after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med2002; 347: 1426–1432.
53.
ArnaoutakisGJZhaoYGeorgeTJ, et al. Surgical repair of ventricular septal defect after myocardial infarction: Outcomes from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. Ann Thorac Surg2012; 94: 436–444.
54.
SchlotterFde WahaSEitelI, et al. Interventional post myocardial infarction ventricular septal defect closure – systematic review of current evidence. EuroIntervention2016; 12: 94–102.
55.
RussoASuriRMGrigioniF, et al. Clinical outcome after surgical correction of mitral regurgitation due to papillary muscle rupture. Circulation2008; 118: 1528–1534.
56.
KapurNKEspositoMLBaderY, et al. Mechanical circulatory support devices for acute right ventricular failure. Circulation2017; 136: 314–326.
57.
HarjolaVPMebazaaAČelutkienėJ., et al. Contemporary management of acute right ventricular failure: A statement from the Heart Failure Association and the Working Group on Pulmonary Circulation and Right Ventricular Function of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail2016; 18: 226–241.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
