Drakos, Stavros G.

Cardiogenic shock continues to carry a high mortality rate despite contemporary care, with no breakthrough therapies shown to improve survival over the past few decades. It is a time‐sensitive condition that commonly results in cardiovascular complications and multisystem organ failure, necessitating multidisciplinary expertise. Managing patients with cardiogenic shock remains challenging even in well‐resourced settings, and an important subgroup of patients may require cardiac replacement therapy. As a result, the idea of leveraging the collective cognitive and procedural proficiencies of multiple providers in a collaborative, team‐based approach to care (the “shock team”) has been advocated by professional societies and implemented at select high‐volume clinical centers. A slowly maturing evidence base has suggested that cardiogenic shock teams may improve patient outcomes. Although several registries exist that are beginning to inform care, particularly around therapeutic strategies of pharmacologic and mechanical circulatory support, none of these are currently focused on the shock team approach, multispecialty partnership, education, or process improvement. We propose the creation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative—akin to the successful Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Consortium—with a goal to promote sharing of care protocols, education of stakeholders, and discovery of how process and performance may influence patient outcomes, quality, resource consumption, and costs of care.

Background Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) provides full hemodynamic support for patients with cardiogenic shock, but optimal timing of ECMO initiation remains uncertain. We sought to determine whether earlier initiation of ECMO is associated with improved survival in cardiogenic shock. Methods and Results We analyzed adult patients with cardiogenic shock who received venoarterial ECMO from the international Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) registry from 2009 to 2019, excluding those cannulated following an operation. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the association between time from admission to ECMO initiation and in‐hospital death. Among 8619 patients (median, 56.7 [range, 44.8–65.6] years; 33.5% women), the median duration from admission to ECMO initiation was 14 (5–32) hours. Patients who had ECMO initiated within 24 hours (n=5882 [68.2%]) differed from those who had ECMO initiated after 24 hours, with younger age, more preceding cardiac arrest, and worse acidosis. After multivariable adjustment, patients with ECMO initiated >24 hours after admission had higher risk of in‐hospital death (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.06–1.36]; P =0.004). Each 12‐hour increase in the time from admission to ECMO initiation was incrementally associated with higher adjusted in‐hospital mortality rate (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.03–1.10]; P <0.001). The association between longer time to ECMO and worse outcomes appeared stronger in patients with lower shock severity. Conclusions Longer delays from admission to ECMO initiation were associated with higher a mortality rate in a large‐scale, international registry. Our analysis supports optimization of door‐to‐support time and the avoidance of inappropriately delayed ECMO initiation.

Introduction: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) provides full hemodynamic support for cardiogenic shock (CS), but optimal timing of ECMO initiation remains uncertain. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that earlier initiation of ECMO would be associated with improved survival in CS patients. Methods: We analyzed adult patients with CS who received VA ECMO from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) Registry from 2009 - 2019, excluding those cannulated following an operation. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the association between time from admission to ECMO initiation and in-hospital mortality. Results: Among 8619 patients (median 56.7 years; 33.5% females), the duration from admission to ECMO initiation was 14 (5, 32) hours. Patients who had ECMO initiated within 24 hours (n = 5882 [68.2%]) differed from those who had ECMO initiated after 24 hours, with younger age, more preceding cardiac arrest, and worse acidosis. After adjustment, patients with ECMO initiated more than 24 hours after admission had higher risk of adjusted in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06-1.36, p = 0.004) (Figure 1). Each 12-hour increase in the time from admission to ECMO initiation was incrementally associated with higher adjusted in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.10, p < 0.001). The association between longer time to ECMO and worse outcomes appeared stronger in patients with lower shock severity. Among patients who were cannulated within 24 hours, those cannulated during the same day shift had lower mortality than those who were admitted at night and cannulated the following day (adjusted OR adjusted OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-0.99, p = 0.04). Conclusions: Longer delays from admission to ECMO initiation were associated with higher mortality in a large-scale, international registry. Our analysis supports optimization of door-to-support time and the avoidance of inappropriately delayed ECMO initiation.

Abstract Aims Shock severity predicts mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). We evaluated the association between pre-cannulation Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock classification and mortality among patients receiving venoarterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for CS. Methods and results We included Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) Registry patients from 2010 to 2020 who received VA ECMO for CS. SCAI shock stage was assigned based on hemodynamic support requirements prior to ECMO initiation. In-hospital mortality was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. We included 12 106 unique VA ECMO patient runs with a median age of 57.9 (interquartile range: 46.8, 66.1) years and 31.8% were females; 3472 (28.7%) were post-cardiotomy. The distribution of SCAI shock stages at ECMO initiation was: B, 821 (6.8%); C, 7518 (62.1%); D, 2973 (24.6%); and E, 794 (6.6%). During the index hospitalization, 6681 (55.2%) patients died. In-hospital mortality increased incrementally with SCAI shock stage (adjusted OR: 1.24 per SCAI shock stage, 95% CI: 1.17–1.32, P &lt; 0.001): B, 47.5%; C, 52.8%; D, 60.8%; E, 65.1%. A higher SCAI shock stage was associated with increased in-hospital mortality in key subgroups, although the SCAI shock classification was only predictive of mortality in non-surgical (medical) CS and not in post-cardiotomy CS. Conclusion The severity of shock prior to cannulation is a strong predictor of in-hospital mortality in patients receiving VA ECMO for CS. Using the pre-cannulation SCAI shock classification as a risk stratification tool can help clinicians refine prognostication for ECMO recipients and guide future investigations to improve outcomes.