Proudfoot, Alastair G

Abstract Aims Cardiogenic shock (CS) is often treated with catecholamines titrated to an adequate target mean arterial pressure (MAP) while minimizing adverse effects. We aim to assess the optimal catecholamine dose/MAP balance in heart failure-associated CS (HF-CS). Methods Patients with HF-CS were retrospectively enrolled from 16 tertiary centres in 5 European countries (2016–2021; NCT03313687). Dosage was quantified by inotropic scores (epinephrine, norepinephrine, and dobutamine). Associations of baseline and seven-day summarized dosage with intensive care unit (ICU) discharge (mixed-effects logistic regression) and 30-day mortality (Cox regression) were analysed. Potential catecholamine/MAP target ratios for optimized outcomes were assessed in models adjusted for age, sex, pH, lactate and prior resuscitation, stratified by centre. Results N = 704 patients: median age 63 years, 74% male, 34% post-resuscitation, median lactate 5.2 mmol/l. Of these, 53% were discharged from ICU, 48% died within 30 days. Higher inotropic scores independently predicted a lower probability of ICU discharge (baseline score: OR 0.78 [95%-CI 0.69–0.88]; summarized score: OR 0.46 [0.38–0.56]; both P < .001) and higher risk of 30-day mortality (baseline score: HR 1.27 [1.15–1.40], summarized score HR 1.83 [1.60–2.09]; both P < .001). A score/MAP ratio <0.403 µg/kg/min/mmHg was associated with higher ICU discharge odds (ceiling effect); a < 0.426 µg/kg/min/mmHg with lower 30-day mortality hazards (no ceiling effect). Lowering catecholamine doses by accepting reduced MAP targets was linked to better outcomes. Conclusion In HF-CS, higher catecholamine support independently associates with worse outcomes. Accepting lower blood pressure targets to reduce catecholamine dosage may improve outcomes. Validation in randomized controlled trials is urgently needed.

Abstract Aims The Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) recently proposed pragmatic consensus definitions to standardize classification of cardiogenic shock (CS) in registries and clinical trials. We aimed to describe contemporary CS epidemiology using the SHARC definitions in a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population. Methods and results The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) is a multinational research network of advanced CICUs coordinated by the TIMI Study Group (Boston, MA). Cardiogenic shock was defined as a cardiac disorder resulting in SBP < 90 mmHg for ≥30 min [or the need for vasopressors, inotropes, or mechanical circulatory support (MCS) to maintain SBP ≥ 90 mmHg] with evidence of hypoperfusion. Primary aetiologic categories included acute myocardial infarction-related CS (AMI-CS), heart failure-related CS (HF-CS), and non-myocardial (secondary) CS. Post-cardiotomy CS was not included. Heart failure-related CS was further subcategorized as de novo vs. acute-on-chronic HF-CS. Patients with both cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic components of shock were classified separately as mixed CS. Of 8974 patients meeting shock criteria (2017–23), 65% had isolated CS and 17% had mixed shock. Among patients with CS (n = 5869), 27% had AMI-CS (65% STEMI), 59% HF-CS (72% acute-on-chronic, 28% de novo), and 14% secondary CS. Patients with AMI-CS and de novo HF-CS were most likely to have had concomitant cardiac arrest (P < 0.001). Patients with AMI-CS and mixed CS were most likely to present in more severe shock stages (SCAI D or E; P < 0.001). Temporary MCS use was highest in AMI-CS (59%). In-hospital mortality was highest in mixed CS (48%), followed by AMI-CS (41%), similar in de novo HF-CS (31%) and secondary CS (31%), and lowest in acute-on-chronic HF-CS (25%; P < 0.001). Conclusion SHARC consensus definitions for CS classification can be pragmatically applied in contemporary registries and reveal discrete subpopulations of CS with distinct phenotypes and outcomes that may be relevant to clinical practice and future research.