Outcome differences in acute vs. acute on chronic heart failure and cardiogenic shock

Abstract Aims Despite advances in coronary reperfusion and percutaneous mechanical circulatory support, mortality among patients presenting with cardiogenic shock (CS) remains unacceptably high. Clinical trials and risk stratification tools have largely focused on acute CS, particularly secondary to...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Tara L. Jones, Michael C. Tan, Vidang Nguyen, Kathleen E. Kearney, Charles C. Maynard, Emily Anderson, Claudius Mahr, James M. McCabe
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2020-06-01
Series:ESC Heart Failure
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12670
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1832544383697682432
author Tara L. Jones
Michael C. Tan
Vidang Nguyen
Kathleen E. Kearney
Charles C. Maynard
Emily Anderson
Claudius Mahr
James M. McCabe
author_facet Tara L. Jones
Michael C. Tan
Vidang Nguyen
Kathleen E. Kearney
Charles C. Maynard
Emily Anderson
Claudius Mahr
James M. McCabe
author_sort Tara L. Jones
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Aims Despite advances in coronary reperfusion and percutaneous mechanical circulatory support, mortality among patients presenting with cardiogenic shock (CS) remains unacceptably high. Clinical trials and risk stratification tools have largely focused on acute CS, particularly secondary to acute coronary syndrome. Considerably less is understood about CS in the setting of acute decompensation in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). We sought to compare outcomes between patients with acute CS and patients with acute on chronic decompensated HF presenting with laboratory and haemodynamic features consistent with CS. Methods and results Sequential patients admitted with CS at a single quaternary centre between January 2014 and August 2017 were identified. Acute on chronic CS was defined by having a prior diagnosis of HF. Initial haemodynamic and laboratory data were collected for analysis. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were use of temporary mechanical circulatory support, durable ventricular assist device implantation, total artificial heart implantation, or heart transplantation. Comparison of continuous variables was performed using Student's t‐test. For categorical variables, the χ2 statistic was used. A total of 235 patients were identified: 51 patients (32.8%) had acute CS, and 184 patients (64.3%) had acute decompensation of chronic HF with no differences in age (52 ± 22 vs. 55 ± 14 years, P = 0.28) or gender (26% vs. 23%, P = 0.75) between the two groups. Patients with acute CS were more likely to suffer in‐hospital death (31.4% vs. 9.8%, P < 0.01) despite higher usage of temporary mechanical circulatory support (52% vs. 25%, P < 0.01) compared with patients presenting with acute on chronic HF. The only clinically significant haemodynamic differences at admission were a higher heart rate (101 ± 29 vs. 82 ± 17 b.p.m., P < 0.01) and wider pulse pressure (34 ± 19 vs. 29 ± 10 mmHg, P < 0.01) in the acute CS group. There were no significant differences in degree of shock based on commonly used CS parameters including mean arterial pressure (72 ± 12 vs. 74 ± 10 mmHg, P = 0.23), cardiac output (3.9 ± 1.2 vs. 3.8 ± 1.2 L/min, P = 0.70), or cardiac power index (0.32 ± 0.09 vs. 0.30 ± 0.09 W/m2, P = 0.24) between the two groups. Conclusions Current definitions and risk stratification models for CS based on clinical trials performed in the setting of acute coronary syndrome may not accurately reflect CS in patients with acute on chronic HF. Further investigation into CS in patients with acute on chronic HF is warranted.
format Article
id doaj-art-0cdab0a9954e4530847e72addfc6c1bf
institution Kabale University
issn 2055-5822
language English
publishDate 2020-06-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series ESC Heart Failure
spelling doaj-art-0cdab0a9954e4530847e72addfc6c1bf2025-02-03T10:25:46ZengWileyESC Heart Failure2055-58222020-06-01731118112410.1002/ehf2.12670Outcome differences in acute vs. acute on chronic heart failure and cardiogenic shockTara L. Jones0Michael C. Tan1Vidang Nguyen2Kathleen E. Kearney3Charles C. Maynard4Emily Anderson5Claudius Mahr6James M. McCabe7Division of Cardiovascular Medicine University of Utah Salt Lake City UT USADivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine University of Washington Heart Institute 1959 NE Pacific St., 3rd Floor Seattle WA 98195 USADivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine University of Washington Heart Institute 1959 NE Pacific St., 3rd Floor Seattle WA 98195 USADivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine University of Washington Heart Institute 1959 NE Pacific St., 3rd Floor Seattle WA 98195 USADepartment of Health Services University of Washington Seattle WA USADivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine University of Washington Heart Institute 1959 NE Pacific St., 3rd Floor Seattle WA 98195 USADivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine University of Washington Heart Institute 1959 NE Pacific St., 3rd Floor Seattle WA 98195 USADivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine University of Washington Heart Institute 1959 NE Pacific St., 3rd Floor Seattle WA 98195 USAAbstract Aims Despite advances in coronary reperfusion and percutaneous mechanical circulatory support, mortality among patients presenting with cardiogenic shock (CS) remains unacceptably high. Clinical trials and risk stratification tools have largely focused on acute CS, particularly secondary to acute coronary syndrome. Considerably less is understood about CS in the setting of acute decompensation in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). We sought to compare outcomes between patients with acute CS and patients with acute on chronic decompensated HF presenting with laboratory and haemodynamic features consistent with CS. Methods and results Sequential patients admitted with CS at a single quaternary centre between January 2014 and August 2017 were identified. Acute on chronic CS was defined by having a prior diagnosis of HF. Initial haemodynamic and laboratory data were collected for analysis. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were use of temporary mechanical circulatory support, durable ventricular assist device implantation, total artificial heart implantation, or heart transplantation. Comparison of continuous variables was performed using Student's t‐test. For categorical variables, the χ2 statistic was used. A total of 235 patients were identified: 51 patients (32.8%) had acute CS, and 184 patients (64.3%) had acute decompensation of chronic HF with no differences in age (52 ± 22 vs. 55 ± 14 years, P = 0.28) or gender (26% vs. 23%, P = 0.75) between the two groups. Patients with acute CS were more likely to suffer in‐hospital death (31.4% vs. 9.8%, P < 0.01) despite higher usage of temporary mechanical circulatory support (52% vs. 25%, P < 0.01) compared with patients presenting with acute on chronic HF. The only clinically significant haemodynamic differences at admission were a higher heart rate (101 ± 29 vs. 82 ± 17 b.p.m., P < 0.01) and wider pulse pressure (34 ± 19 vs. 29 ± 10 mmHg, P < 0.01) in the acute CS group. There were no significant differences in degree of shock based on commonly used CS parameters including mean arterial pressure (72 ± 12 vs. 74 ± 10 mmHg, P = 0.23), cardiac output (3.9 ± 1.2 vs. 3.8 ± 1.2 L/min, P = 0.70), or cardiac power index (0.32 ± 0.09 vs. 0.30 ± 0.09 W/m2, P = 0.24) between the two groups. Conclusions Current definitions and risk stratification models for CS based on clinical trials performed in the setting of acute coronary syndrome may not accurately reflect CS in patients with acute on chronic HF. Further investigation into CS in patients with acute on chronic HF is warranted.https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12670Cardiogenic shockHeart failureMechanical circulatory supportTemporary circulatory support
spellingShingle Tara L. Jones
Michael C. Tan
Vidang Nguyen
Kathleen E. Kearney
Charles C. Maynard
Emily Anderson
Claudius Mahr
James M. McCabe
Outcome differences in acute vs. acute on chronic heart failure and cardiogenic shock
ESC Heart Failure
Cardiogenic shock
Heart failure
Mechanical circulatory support
Temporary circulatory support
title Outcome differences in acute vs. acute on chronic heart failure and cardiogenic shock
title_full Outcome differences in acute vs. acute on chronic heart failure and cardiogenic shock
title_fullStr Outcome differences in acute vs. acute on chronic heart failure and cardiogenic shock
title_full_unstemmed Outcome differences in acute vs. acute on chronic heart failure and cardiogenic shock
title_short Outcome differences in acute vs. acute on chronic heart failure and cardiogenic shock
title_sort outcome differences in acute vs acute on chronic heart failure and cardiogenic shock
topic Cardiogenic shock
Heart failure
Mechanical circulatory support
Temporary circulatory support
url https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12670
work_keys_str_mv AT taraljones outcomedifferencesinacutevsacuteonchronicheartfailureandcardiogenicshock
AT michaelctan outcomedifferencesinacutevsacuteonchronicheartfailureandcardiogenicshock
AT vidangnguyen outcomedifferencesinacutevsacuteonchronicheartfailureandcardiogenicshock
AT kathleenekearney outcomedifferencesinacutevsacuteonchronicheartfailureandcardiogenicshock
AT charlescmaynard outcomedifferencesinacutevsacuteonchronicheartfailureandcardiogenicshock
AT emilyanderson outcomedifferencesinacutevsacuteonchronicheartfailureandcardiogenicshock
AT claudiusmahr outcomedifferencesinacutevsacuteonchronicheartfailureandcardiogenicshock
AT jamesmmccabe outcomedifferencesinacutevsacuteonchronicheartfailureandcardiogenicshock