Next Article in Journal
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with Self-Expandable ACURATE neo as compared to Balloon-Expandable SAPIEN 3 in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis: Meta-analysis of Randomized and Propensity-Matched Studies. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 397
Next Article in Special Issue
Patient Characteristics, Treatment and Outcome in Non-Ischemic vs. Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock
Previous Article in Journal
The Prognostic Value of High Platelet Reactivity in Ischemic Stroke Depends on the Etiology: A Pilot Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Prognostic Significance of Arterial Lactate Levels at Weaning from Postcardiotomy Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 9
Issue 3
10.3390/jcm9030860
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Outcomes Associated with Respiratory Failure for Patients with Cardiogenic Shock and Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Substudy of the CULPRIT-SHOCK Trial

by
Maria Rubini Giménez
1,2,†,
P. Elliott Miller
3,4,†,
Carlos L. Alviar
5,
Sean van Diepen
6,
Christopher B. Granger
7,
Gilles Montalescot
8,
Stephan Windecker
9,
Lars Maier
10,
Pranas Serpytis
11,
Rokas Serpytis
11,
Keith G. Oldroyd
12,
Marko Noc
13,
Georg Fuernau
14,
Kurt Huber
15,
Marcus Sandri
1,
Suzanne de Waha-Thiele
14,
Steffen Schneider
16,
Taoufik Ouarrak
16,
Uwe Zeymer
17,
Steffen Desch
1 and
Holger Thiele
1,*add Show full author list remove Hide full author list
1
Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig and Leipzig Heart Institute, 04289 Leipzig, Germany
2
Cardiovascular Research Institute Basel (CRIB), University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland
3
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520-8017, USA
4
Yale National Clinician Scholars Program, New Haven, CT 06510-8088, USA
5
The Leon H. Charney Division of Cardiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, USA
6
Department of Critical Care Medicine and Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB 8440, Canada
7
Cardiology Department, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC 27701, USA
8
Department of Cardiology, Institut de Cardiologie (AP-HP), Hôpital Pitié Salpêtrière, Sorbonne Université, ACTION study group, 75013 Paris, France
9
Department of Cardiology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, 3010 Bern, Switzerland
10
Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Regensburg, 93077 Regensburg, Germany
11
Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University and Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos, 08410 Vilnius, Lithuania
12
Department of Cardiology, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Glasgow G81 4DY, UK
13
Cardiology Department, University Medical Center Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
14
Cardiology Department, University Heart Center Luebeck, 23538 Luebeck, Germany
15
3rd Department of Internal Medicine, Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Wilhelminenhospital and Sigmund Freud University, Medical School, 2301 Vienna, Austria
16
Statistical department, Institut für Herzinfarktforschung, 67063 Ludwigshafen, Germany
17
Hospital of the city of Ludwigshafen, Medical Clinic B and Institut für Herzinfarktforschung, 67063 Ludwigshafen, Germany
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9(3), 860; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030860
Submission received: 3 February 2020 / Revised: 16 March 2020 / Accepted: 17 March 2020 / Published: 20 March 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Management of Cardiogenic Shock)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Little is known about clinical outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infraction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) requiring mechanical ventilation (MV). The aim of this study was to identify the characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes associated with the provision of MV in this specific high-risk population. Methods: Patients with CS complicating AMI and multivessel coronary artery disease from the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial were included. We explored 30 days of clinical outcomes in patients not requiring MV, those with MV on admission, and those in whom MV was initiated within the first day after admission. Results: Among 683 randomized patients included in the analysis, 17.4% received no MV, 59.7% were ventilated at admission and 22.8% received MV within or after the first day after admission. Patients requiring MV had a different risk-profile. Factors independently associated with the provision of MV on admission included higher body weight, resuscitation within 24 h before admission, elevated heart rate and evidence of triple vessel disease. Conclusions: Requiring MV in patients with CS complicating AMI is common and independently associated with mortality after adjusting for covariates. Patients with delayed MV initiation appear to be at higher risk of adverse outcomes. Further research is necessary to identify the optimal timing of MV in this high-risk population.

1. Background

Patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) experience respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) in 80% of the cases [1,2,3,4] being a marker of higher patient complexity [2,5]. Current clinical management of respiratory failure in CS is largely based on expert opinion, preclinical data or small clinical series, and most commonly includes invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) [6,7]. Alternatives such as non-invasive ventilation (NIV) are frequently used in acute pulmonary edema in patients without shock, but its use and effects in CS are less well established [6,8].
Although frequently lifesaving, implementation of mechanical ventilation (MV) requires proper understanding of cardiopulmonary interactions between respiratory mechanics and hemodynamics, particularly in patients with CS, as well as familiarity and knowledge about the potential beneficial and adverse effects [1]. As such, the effects of MV in improving hemodynamics by unloading the left ventricle, improving oxygenation and tissue perfusion, may play a beneficial role in CS, particularly when initiated early in the clinical course. However, despite the significant interactions with the cardiovascular system and pervasiveness in CS, the ideal management of respiratory failure, understanding of the risk factors, and the development of associated clinical outcomes or complications have to date not been adequately investigated [9,10]. Given the paucity of available data, we sought to explore the association between MV timing and strategy among patients with CS from the CULPRIT-SHOCK (Culprit Lesion Only PCI versus Multivessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock) randomized clinical trial.

2. Methods

2.1. Trial Design

The present report is a secondary analysis of the multicenter randomized CULPRIT-SHOCK trial (www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01927549). The design details including inclusion and exclusion criteria have been published previously [11,12,13]. Briefly, patients with AMI complicated by CS and multivessel coronary artery disease with planned early revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were randomly assigned 1:1 to undergo either culprit-lesion-only PCI (with possible staged revascularization) or immediate multivessel PCI. CS was defined by a systolic blood pressure of less than 90 mmHg for more than 30 min or the use of vasopressor agents to maintain a systolic pressure of at least 90 mmHg, along with clinical signs of pulmonary congestion, and signs of impaired organ perfusion (altered mental status, cold and clammy skin and limbs, oliguria or arterial lactate level over 2.0 mmol/L). Patients were excluded if they were older than 90 years of age or if the etiology of CS included a mechanical cause, massive pulmonary embolism or single vessel coronary disease. In addition, patients were excluded if they had undergone cardiopulmonary resuscitation for over 30 min with no intrinsic heart action and poor neurological status, if they had known severe renal insufficiency, if their life expectancy was thought to be less than 6 months from concomitant severe disease, and if the onset of shock was over 12 h before randomization. Respiratory support utilization, including type of ventilator support (NIV vs. IMV) and timing of MV was left at the discretion of the treating clinician.
All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the local Ethics Committee. Ethical approvals by the lead ethical committees for each country are: (a) Germany, Ethical Committee at the University of Luebeck: reference number 13-142; (b) Netherlands, Medisch Ethische Toetsingscommissie (Academisch Medisch Centrum, University of Amsterdam): reference number E2-170; (c) Austria, Magistratsabteilung 15-Gesundheitsdienst der Stadt Wien: reference number EK-13-241-0214; (d) Lithuania, Lietuvos Bioetikos Komitetas: reference numbers L-14-01/1 and L-14-01/2; (e) France, Comité de Protection des Personnes, Ile de France 1: reference number 2014-janvier.-13464; (f) Poland, Klinika Intensywnej Terapii Kardiologicznej: reference number IK-NP-0021-97/1408/13; (g) Slovenia, Komisija Republike Slovenije za medicinsko etiko: reference numbers 63/12/13 and 60/09/14; (h) Switzerland, Kantonale Ethikkommission Bern (KEK): reference number 041/14; (i) Italy, Comitato Etico Provinciale di Reggio Emilia: reference number 2013/0029992; (j) Belgium, Universiteit Antwerpen (Ethics Committee): reference number 15/11/116; (k) UK, National Health Service (NHS) (Scotland Research Ethics Committee): reference number 14/YH/0116; and (l) Scotland, NHS (Scotland rEsearch Ethics Committee): reference number 14/SS/0072.

2.2. Outcomes

The primary endpoint of the current subanalysis was death from any cause within 30 days after randomization. Patients were stratified in three groups: (1) no MV (not requiring MV at all), (2) MV present on admission and (3) MV initiated within the first day after admission (or the following days). Secondary endpoints of the current subanalysis included renal failure requiring renal replacement within 30 days, re-hospitalization for congestive heart failure, repeat revascularization at 30 days, time to hemodynamic stabilization, use and duration of catecholamine therapy, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay and duration of MV, respectively.
Safety endpoints included stroke and bleeding, which were defined as bleeding type 2, 3 or 5 on the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium scale [13,14]. All endpoints were adjudicated by blinded clinical events committee members.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Categorical variables were expressed as counts and percentages and were compared by Chi2-test. Continuous variables were presented as median and interquartile range (IQR) and were compared by Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test. The primary endpoint of death from any cause within 30 days after randomization was displayed by Kaplan-Meier-curves. Adjusted odd ratios (OR) for the primary endpoint in the ventilated groups (compared to no-ventilated groups) were also calculated (adjusted for age > 73 years, male, weight (kg), resuscitation within 24 h before randomization, left bundle branch block, ST-segment elevation, ST-segment depression, heart rate (bpm), creatinine on admission (umol/l) and triple vessel disease). To identify predictors of MV within 30 days, logistic regression models were constructed. The multivariate models included all baseline variables with a relevant association (p-value < 0.1) from univariate analyses.
In addition, we performed two sensitivity analyses. First, we assessed for the association of NIV and clinical outcome by stratifying our cohort into four groups: (1) no respiratory support, (2) NIV alone, (3) NIV before IMV, and (4) IMV alone. Second, given the ubiquitous use of MV in patients who experience cardiac arrest, we assessed for the association between mortality and MV use in a cohort that excluded patients presenting with cardiac arrest.
All p-values were two-tailed and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant unless stated otherwise. All analyses were performed using SAS statistical package version 9.4 (Cary, NC, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Patient Characteristics

Among the 683 patients included from the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, 408 (59.7%) presented with MV at admission, 156 (22.8%) received MV within the first day or later after admission due to respiratory failure, and 119 (17.4%) did not require any MV (Figure 1). Patients undergoing MV were younger, had a higher body mass indices (BMI), higher heart rate, presented more often with clinical signs of impaired organ perfusion, had more frequently undergone resuscitation within 24 h, had worse renal function, had more triple vessel disease, lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), whereas they were less frequently smokers and presented more often with Non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (Table 1). Treatment characteristics differed substantially between ventilated and non-ventilated patients. Ventilated patients less frequently received manual thrombectomy, and radial access. Additionally, they more frequently received mechanical circulatory support, catecholamines, targeted temperature management, and had longer ICU length of stay and longer time to hemodynamic stabilization (Table 2).

3.2. Clinical Outcomes

The primary endpoint of death at 30 days occurred in 21.0% of non-ventilated patients, in 49.6% of ventilated patients on admission (adjusted OR 5.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] CI 2.74–10.04, p = 0.007, compared to patients without MV) and in 61.5% of patients ventilated within 1 day after admission (adjusted OR 7.18, 95%CI 3.81–13.53, p < 0.001, compared to patients without MV) (Figure 2, Table 3). After 365 days of follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred in 26.9% of non-ventilated patients, in 55.8% of patients ventilated at admission and in 67.3% of patients ventilated within the first day after admission (p < 0.001) (see Supplementary, Table S1).
On multivariate analysis, independent predictors for MV at admission were higher body weight, left bundle branch block, resuscitation within 24 h before randomization, higher heart rate, catecholamine requirement, and absence of ST-segment elevation. Independent predictors for MV initiated within the first day after admission were higher heart rate and catecholamine requirement (see Supplementary, Table S2).
A total of 366 (53.6%) patients required cardiopulmonary resuscitation within 24 h before randomization, most of them (n = 348, 95.1%) received MV either at presentation (92.8%) or within the first day after admission (7.2%). Among the remaining patients who did not undergo resuscitation (n = 315), a total of 101 (32.1%) required no ventilation, 85 (26.9%) were ventilated at presentation and 129 (41.0%) received MV within the first day or later after admission.
Patients without resuscitation requiring ventilation more frequently had, in general terms, greater BMI, creatinine values and heart rate, more frequently presented with triple vessel disease, were more likely to have previous history of PCI, more commonly had clinical signs of impaired organ perfusion, lower LVEF, whereas they were less frequently smokers. The primary endpoint occurred more often among ventilated patients (see Supplementary, Table S3). Additionally, manual thrombectomy and femoral access were more commonly used in these patients. Mechanical support, catecholamine use and hypothermia due to in-hospital cardiac arrest that occurred after admission were more frequently used in the MV group as well.

3.3. Sensitivity Analyses

Among patients who received respiratory support (n = 564) where type of ventilation was available (n = 503), 56 (11.1%) received NIV alone, 12 (2.3%) received NIV before IMV, and the majority (n = 435, 85.5%) received IMV alone. Baseline characteristics of all groups are shown in Supplementary Table S4. The primary endpoint was higher among patients requiring IMV (29.1%) and specially among those receiving NIV before IMV (66.7%).

4. Discussion

In this secondary analysis of the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, we investigated the outcomes associated with respiratory failure in patients with CS and AMI and observed three novel findings. First, over 80% of patients developed respiratory failure, with the majority (60.4%) requiring MV already on admission (intubated out-of-hospital). Second, patients receiving MV had an approximately 60% risk of death within 30 days, including a higher observed risk among patients who received MV after admission. Third, over 10% of patients were initially treated with NIV, which was successful in nearly 80%, as defined by no need for further IMV. However, in patients who failed NIV and required IMV, mortality was significantly higher than in those who did not fail NIV.
Since the SHOCK (Should we Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock) trial nearly 20 years ago showed the superiority of mechanical revascularization over medical therapy, no interventions, including mechanical circulatory support, have proven to improve outcomes in patients with CS [4,15,16,17,18]. Indeed, there is still an unacceptable high mortality rate, especially among high-risk patients [19,20,21]. One possible reason for the lack of benefit from many of these interventions is the heterogeneity and spectrum of severity in CS [17]. As part of a recent classification schema by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) to improve risk stratification and guide treatment, the need for respiratory support is considered as a marker of severity in CS (Stages C to E) [17,22]. Similarly, in the present study, we found that for patients who required respiratory support, independently of the ventilator strategy (NIV and/or IMV) and timing, respiratory support identified a higher-risk population.
We found that patients ventilated on admission had a lower risk of death compared to those requiring ventilation later, which persisted after the exclusion of patients presenting with cardiac arrest. Similarly, mechanical circulatory support in those undergoing MV within the first day was also more frequent, suggesting greater shock severity in this group. While the etiology for this difference is likely multifactorial, early MV may offer several therapeutic benefits. In addition to improving oxygenation, ventilation, and work of breathing, with the consequent attenuation of the hypoxia-ischemia-hypoperfusion cycle, the use of MV may also provide beneficial effects on cardiovascular hemodynamics. Through an increase in intrathoracic pressure, positive pressure ventilation may lower left ventricular afterload and decrease preload in patients with left ventricular dysfunction [1,23,24], particularly in patients with elevated filling pressures in whom cardiac output can be augmented [25,26]. However, in patients with right ventricular failure, positive pressure ventilation can increase right ventricular afterload and decrease preload, thereby worsening hemodynamics and decreasing cardiac output [1]. These differential effects of positive pressure ventilation highlight the importance of a proper understanding of the heterogeneous spectrum of shock, the identification of right ventricular involvement, as well as the specific cardiopulmonary interactions of specific patient profiles. While our results are hypothesis generating, further research is needed to assess the ideal timing of MV and associations with clinical outcomes for patients with CS, especially given that our results did not allow us to explore associations between MV and outcomes according to the presence of predominantly right or left ventricular shock.
Very little is known regarding the use of NIV in patients with CS [8]. Hongisto et al. categorized ventilatory support strategies in the prospective, multicenter CardShock registry [27]. Among the 219 CS patients, they reported that 63% received IMV, 12% received NIV, and 26% did not need any ventilator support. A total of eight patients failed NIV and required IMV but were split amongst the two ventilator groups (n = 4 in both). At 90 days, mortality was 27% and 50% for the NIV and IMV groups, respectively. However, after propensity matching for demographics, medical history, and acuity, the 90-day mortality was similar with both modalities. Of note, the sample size in that registry was too small to assess patients who failed NIV and required IMV [27].
In our larger cohort, we observed that among 11% of patients initially treated with NIV, 78% did not require escalation to IMV. Among patients not escalated to IMV, the 30-day mortality was substantially lower (29%) than in patients who required IMV (64%). Patients in whom NIV failed and required IMV, had the highest mortality (over 83%). While this was a much smaller cohort, our findings are consistent with findings from other critical care populations which reported worse outcomes for patients in whom intubation was delayed, was initially not indicated or in whom NIV failed [28]. In a randomized controlled trial, for patients who developed respiratory distress within 48 h after extubation and were randomized to NIV vs standard oxygen therapy, NIV actually had lower survival rates than those randomized to standard oxygen therapy. They found that those randomized to NIV had a significantly longer interval from respiratory failure to eventual reintubation [29]. The mechanisms behind these findings are likely multifactorial (e.g., cardiac ischemia, complications of emergency intubation, respiratory muscle fatigue, etc.), but highlight the importance of heightened vigilance needed for this critically ill group, and the potential of a false sense of safety that may take place when using NIV, and that could potentially delay transition to IMV and therefore lead to adverse outcomes. Further research to identify the optimal timing of intubation is warranted.

5. Limitations

Our study should be viewed in light of several limitations, including the inherent limitations of a post-hoc analysis and the potential for imbalanced variables and unmeasured confounders between comparison groups. First, we were unable to identify the exact timing of respiratory support implementation other than on admission or within the first day after admission. Therefore, we are unable to classify more specific timing such as before, during, or after revascularization or perform an analysis of outcomes based on time delays for implementation of MV or transition from NIV to IMV. Second, data about specific MV parameters, settings or respiratory mechanics such as tidal volume, positive-end expiratory pressure, peak airway pressures, plateau pressures or MV modes are not available in the present database, limiting the ability to draw conclusions about the association of MV settings on outcomes. Third, our study includes only patients with AMI and multivessel disease and may not be generalizable to other etiologies of CS or with AMI and single vessel disease. Fourth, in some patients it was not possible to obtain an informed consent and they had to be withdrawn for the study.

6. Conclusions

In the CUPLRIT-SHOCK trial cohort, we observed that patients with AMI complicated by CS who received MV had a significantly higher risk of mortality compared to patients without MV. NIV was utilized in approximately 10% of patients, associated with favorable outcome if successful, but was associated with a mortality over 80% for those who failed NIV and required intubation. Additional research is necessary to identify the optimal timing and ideal respiratory support modality for patients with CS with AMI.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/9/3/860/s1, Table S1: Clinical outcomes at 365 days, Table S2: Independent predictors for ventilation, Table S3: Characteristics of non-resuscitated patients, Table S4: Baseline characteristics according to ventilation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: M.R.G., P.E.M., C.L.A., S.v.D., C.B.G., U.Z., S.D. and H.T.; methodology, M.R.G., P.E.M., C.L.A., S.v.D., C.B.G., U.Z., S.D. and H.T.; software, S.S. and T.O.; validation, M.R.G., P.E.M., C.L.A., S.v.D., C.B.G., U.Z., S.D. and H.T.; formal analysis, S.S. and T.O.; investigation, M.R.G., P.E.M., C.L.A., S.v.D., C.B.G., U.Z., S.D. and H.T.; resources, U.Z., S.D and H.T.; data curation, G.M., S.W., L.M., P.S., R.S., K.G.O., M.N., G.F., K.H., M.S., S.d.W.-T., U.Z., S.D., H.T.; writing—original draft preparation, M.R.G., P.E.M., C.L.A., S.v.D., C.B.G., U.Z., S.D. and H.T.; writing—review and editing, M.R.G., P.E.M., C.L.A., S.v.D., C.B.G., G.M., S.W., L.M., P.S., R.S., K.G.O., M.N., G.F., K.H., M.S., S.d.W.-T., U.Z., S.D., H.T.; visualization, M.R.G., P.E.M., C.L.A., S.v.D., C.B.G., U.Z., S.D. and H.T.; supervision, S.D., U.Z., H.T.; project administration, S.D., U.Z., H.T.; funding acquisition, S.d.W.-T., S.D., U.Z., H.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Supported by a grant agreement (602202) from the European Union Seventh Framework Program and by the German Heart Research Foundation and the German Cardiac Society. Also supported by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research.

Acknowledgments

We thank the patients who agreed to participate in this trial and their relatives, the trial contributors, and the investigators who recruited the patients.

Conflicts of Interest

Rubini Gimenez reports research grants from Swiss National Foundation (P400PM_180828) for the current work as well as research grants from the Swiss Heart Foundation and speakers’ honoraria from Roche, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Abbott and Siemens, outside the submitted work. Miller reports funding through by the Yale National Clinician Scholars Program and by CTSA Grant Number TL1 TR001864 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of NIH. Montalescot reports research grants to the Institution or Consulting/Lecture Fees from Abbott, Amgen, Actelion, American College of Cardiology Foundation, AstraZeneca, Axis-Santé, Bayer, Boston-Scientific, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical, Brigham Women’s Hospital, China heart House, Daiichi-Sankyo, Idorsia, Elsevier, Europa, Fédération Française de Cardiologie, ICAN, Lead-Up, Medtronic, Menarini, MSD, Novo-Nordisk, Partners, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, Sanofi, Servier, WebMD. Windecker reports research and educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, CSL Behring, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Polares and Sinom. Oldroyd reports consultancy fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific and Biosensors and research support from Boston Scientific. de Waha-Thiele reports grants from German Heart Research Foundation, German Cardiac Society, and European Union, Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) Grant agreement n°602202 during the conduct of the study. Zeymer reports grants and personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Bayer, grants and personal fees from BMS, grants and personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Medicines Company, personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Ferrer, grants and personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. Desch reports grants from European Union during the conduct of the study. Thiele reports grants to the institution from European Union, German Cardiac Society, and German Heart Research Foundation during the conduct of the study.

References

  1. Alviar, C.L.; Miller, P.E.; McAreavey, D.; Katz, J.N.; Lee, B.; Moriyama, B.; Soble, J.; Van Diepen, S.; Solomon, M.A.; Morrow, D.A.; et al. Positive Pressure Ventilation in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2018, 72, 1532–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Helgestad, O.K.; Josiassen, J.; Hassager, C.; Jensen, L.O.; Holmvang, L.; Sørensen, A.; Frydland, M.; Lassen, A.T.; Udesen, N.L.; Schmidt, H.; et al. Temporal trends in incidence and patient characteristics in cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction from 2010 to 2017: A Danish cohort study. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2019, 21, 1370–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Alexander, J.H.; Reynolds, H.R.; Stebbins, A.L.; Dzavik, V.; Harrington, R.A.; de Werf Van, F.; Hochman, J.S. Effect of tilarginine acetate in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: The TRIUMPH randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2007, 297, 1657–1666. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Hochman, J.; Sleeper, L.A.; Webb, J.G.; A Sanborn, T.; White, H.D.; Talley, J.D.; Buller, C.E.; Jacobs, A.K.; Slater, J.; Col, J.; et al. Early Revascularization in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock. N. Engl. J. Med. 1999, 341, 625–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Vallabhajosyula, S.; Dunlay, S.M.; Prasad, A.; Kashani, K.; Sakhuja, A.; Gersh, B.J.; Jaffe, A.S.; Holmes, D.R.; Barsness, G.W. Acute Noncardiac Organ Failure in Acute Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2019, 73, 1781–1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Van Diepen, S.; Katz, J.N.; Albert, N.M.; Henry, T.D.; Jacobs, A.K.; Kapur, N.K.; Kilic, A.; Menon, V.; Ohman, E.M.; Sweitzer, N.K.; et al. Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation 2017, 136, e232–e268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Thiele, H.; Ohman, E.M.; De Waha-Thiele, S.; Zeymer, U.; Desch, S. Management of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: An update 2019. Eur. Heart J. 2019, 40, 2671–2683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Masip, J.; Peacock, W.F.; Price, S.; Cullen, L.; Martín-Sánchez, F.J.; Seferovic, P.; Maisel, A.S.; Miro, O.; Filippatos, G.; Vrints, C.; et al. Indications and practical approach to non-invasive ventilation in acute heart failure. Eur. Heart J. 2018, 39, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Miller, P.E.; Gimenez, M.R.; Thiele, H. Mechanical respiratory support in cardiogenic shock. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2019, 22, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kouraki, K.; Schneider, S.; Uebis, R.; Tebbe, U.; Klein, H.H.; Janssens, U.; Zahn, R.; Senges, J.; Zeymer, U. Characteristics and clinical outcome of 458 patients with acute myocardial infarction requiring mechanical ventilation. Results of the BEAT registry of the ALKK-study group. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2010, 100, 235–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Thiele, H.; Akin, I.; Sandri, M.; Fürnau, G.; De Waha, S.; Meyer-Saraei, R.; Nordbeck, P.; Geisler, T.; Landmesser, U.; Skurk, C.; et al. PCI Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 377, 2419–2432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Thiele, H.; Akin, I.; Sandri, M.; De Waha-Thiele, S.; Meyer-Saraei, R.; Fürnau, G.; Eitel, I.; Nordbeck, P.; Geisler, T.; Landmesser, U.; et al. One-Year Outcomes after PCI Strategies in Cardiogenic Shock. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 379, 1699–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Thiele, H.; Desch, S.; Piek, J.J.; Stepinska, J.; Oldroyd, K.; Serpytis, P.; Montalescot, G.; Noc, M.; Huber, K.; Fürnau, G.; et al. Multivessel versus culprit lesion only percutaneous revascularization plus potential staged revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Design and rationale of CULPRIT-SHOCK trial. Am. Heart J. 2016, 172, 160–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mehran, R.; Rao, S.V.; Bhatt, D.L.; Gibson, C.M.; Caixeta, A.; Eikelboom, J.; Kaul, S.; Wiviott, S.D.; Menon, V.; Nikolsky, E.; et al. Standardized Bleeding Definitions for Cardiovascular Clinical Trials: A Consensus Report From the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium. Circulation 2011, 123, 2736–2747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Burkhoff, D.; Cohen, H.; Brunckhorst, C.; O’Neill, W.W. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ouweneel, D.; Eriksen, E.; Seyfarth, M.; Henriques, J.P.S. Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for Treating Cardiogenic Shock. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2017, 69, 358–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Baran, D.A.; Grines, C.L.; Bailey, S.; Burkhoff, D.; Hall, S.A.; Henry, T.D.; Hollenberg, S.M.; Kapur, N.K.; O’Neill, W.; Ornato, J.P.; et al. SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2019, 94, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Thiele, H.; Zeymer, U.; Neumann, D.M.F.-J.; Ferenc, M.; Olbrich, H.-G.; Hausleiter, J.; Richardt, G.; Hennersdorf, M.; Empen, K.; Fuernau, G.; et al. Intraaortic Balloon Support for Myocardial Infarction with Cardiogenic Shock. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 367, 1287–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Marfella, R.; Sardu, C.; Balestrieri, M.L.; Siniscalchi, M.; Minicucci, F.; Signoriello, G.; Calabrò, P.; Mauro, C.; Pieretti, G.; Sardu, C.; et al. Effects of incretin treatment on cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic STEMI-patients with culprit obstructive and multivessel non obstructive-coronary-stenosis. Diabetol. Metab. Syndr. 2018, 10, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Marfella, R.; Rizzo, M.R.; Siniscalchi, M.; Paolisso, P.; Barbieri, M.; Sardu, C.; Savinelli, A.; Angelico, N.; Del Gaudio, S.; Esposito, N.; et al. Peri-procedural tight glycemic control during early percutaneous coronary intervention up-regulates endothelial progenitor cell level and differentiation during acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Effects on myocardial salvage. Int. J. Cardiol. 2013, 168, 3954–3962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Sardu, C.; D’Onofrio, N.; Torella, M.; Portoghese, M.; Loreni, F.; Mureddu, S.; Signoriello, G.; Scisciola, L.; Barbieri, M.; Rizzo, M.R.; et al. Pericoronary fat inflammation and Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) in prediabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction: Effects of metformin. Cardiovasc. Diabetol. 2019, 18, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Jentzer, J.; Van Diepen, S.; Barsness, G.W.; Henry, T.D.; Menon, V.; Rihal, C.S.; Naidu, S.S.; Baran, D.A. Cardiogenic Shock Classification to Predict Mortality in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2019, 74, 2117–2128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Magder, S.A.; Lichtenstein, S.; Adelman, A.G. Effects of negative pleural pressure on left ventricular hemodynamics. Am. J. Cardiol. 1983, 52, 588–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fessler, H.; Brower, R.; Wise, R. Mechanism of reduced LV afterload by systolic and diastolic positive pleural pressure. J. Appl. Physiol. 1988, 65, 1244–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Grace, M.P.; Greenbaum, D.M. Cardiac performance in response to PEEP in patients with cardiac dysfunction. Crit. Care Med. 1982, 10, 358–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wiesen, J.; Ornstein, M.C.; Tonelli, A.R.; Menon, V.; Ashton, R.W. State of the evidence: Mechanical ventilation with PEEP in patients with cardiogenic shock. Heart 2013, 99, 1812–1817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Hongisto, M.; Lassus, J.; Tarvasmäki, T.; Sionis, A.; Tolppanen, H.; Lindholm, M.G.; Banaszewski, M.; Parissis, J.; Spinar, J.; Silva-Cardoso, J.; et al. Use of noninvasive and invasive mechanical ventilation in cardiogenic shock: A prospective multicenter study. Int. J. Cardiol. 2017, 230, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Esteban, A.; Anzueto, A.; Frutos-Vivar, F.; Alía, I.; Brochard, L.; Stewart, T.E.; Benito, S.; Epstein, S.K.; Apezteguía, C.; Nightingale, P.; et al. Characteristics and Outcomes in Adult Patients Receiving Mechanical VentilationA 28-Day International Study. JAMA 2002, 287, 345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Esteban, A.; Frutos-Vivar, F.; Ferguson, N.; Arabi, Y.M.; Apezteguía, C.; González, M.; Epstein, S.K.; Hill, N.; Nava, S.; Soares, M.-A.; et al. Noninvasive Positive-Pressure Ventilation for Respiratory Failure after Extubation. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004, 350, 2452–2460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Jcm 09 00860 g001 550
Figure 1. Study flow. Flowchart displaying patients randomized in the study and included in the current analysis.
Figure 1. Study flow. Flowchart displaying patients randomized in the study and included in the current analysis.
Jcm 09 00860 g001
Jcm 09 00860 g002 550
Figure 2. Time to primary endpoint in 30 days. Kaplan‒Meier estimates time-to-event curves for death from any cause in 30 days. MV = mechanical ventilation.
Figure 2. Time to primary endpoint in 30 days. Kaplan‒Meier estimates time-to-event curves for death from any cause in 30 days. MV = mechanical ventilation.
Jcm 09 00860 g002
Table
Table 1. Baseline characteristics.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics.
No
Ventilation		Ventilation at AdmissionVentilation within Day 1 after Admission
n = 119n = 408n = 156p-Value
Age‒years
Median (IQR)70 (60,78)68 (59, 77)73 (63, 80)< 0.001
BMI kg/m2
Median (IQR)25.7 (23.4, 28.4)27.1 (24.7, 29.4)26.6 (24.5, 30.1)0.008
Cardiovascular risk factors n/N (%)
Current smoking43/118 (36.4)96/391 (24.6)34/148 (23.0)0.02
Hypertension69/119 (58.0)240/401 (59.9)95/152 (62.5)0.74
Dyslipidemia44/119 (37.0)134/398 (33.7)48/152 (31.6)0.65
Diabetes mellitus38/119 (31.9)126/398 (31.7)54/153 (35.3)0.71
Family history of CAD19/118 (16.1)43/385 (11.2)17/144 (11.8)0.35
Previous myocardial infarction n/N (%)24/118 (20.3)65/400 (16.3)24/153 (15.7)0.53
Previous stroke n/N (%)9/119 (7.6)23/401 (5.7)17/154 (1.9)0.12
Known peripheral artery disease n/N (%)15/119 (12.6)40/402 (10.0)25/154 (16.2)0.12
Known renal insufficiency (GFR < 30 mL/min) n/N (%)6/119 (5.0)27/402 (10.0)13/152 (8.6)0.52
Chronic dialysis n/N (%)1/119 (0.8)2/402 (0.5)2/154 (1.3)0.61
Previous PCI n/N (%)25/118 (21.2)81/400 (20.3)20/153 (13.1)0.12
Previous CABG no (%) n/N (%)4/119 (3.4)25/402 (6.2)3/154 (1.9)0.08
Signs of impaired organ perfusion n/N (%)
Altered mental status54/119 (45.4)327/406 (80.5)79/155 (51.0)<0.001
Cold, clammy skin and limbs67/119 (56.3)296/399 (74.2)105/153 (68.6)<0.001
Oliguria (≤ 30 mL/h)12/117 (10.3)121/394 (30.7)40/147 (27.2)<0.001
Arterial lactate > 2.0 mmol/L49/117 (41.9)279/396 (70.5)111/149 (74.5)<0.001
Resuscitation before randomization n/N (%)18/119 (15.1)323/408 (79.2)111/149 (74.5)<0.001
ST-segment elevation n/N (%)85/117 (72.6)223/392 (56.9)105/153 (68.6)0.002
anterior n/N (%)40/84 (47.6)121/221 (54.8)59/104 (56.7)0.42
non-anterior n/N (%)44/84 (52.4)100/221 (45.2)45/104 (43.3)0.42
ST-segment depression n/N (%)45/117 (38.5)189/392 (48.2)72/153 (47.1)0.17
LBBB n/N (%)11/117 (9.4)68/393 (17.3)20/153 (13.1)0.08
Mean arterial pressure‒mmHg
Median (IQR)78 (63, 93)75 (63, 91)75 (63, 95)0.89
Heart rate-beats/min
Median (IQR)79 (61, 101)91 (78, 108)94 (72, 109)< 0.001
Creatinine (mmol/l)
Median (IQR)8.8 (7.2, 13.4)13.1 (9.3, 17.6)12.3 (9.8, 17.4)< 0.001
N°of affected vessels n/N (%) 0.03
1 n/N (%)2/119 (1.7)3/408 (0.7)0/155 (0.0)
2 n/N (%)54/119 (45.4)137/408 (33.6)54/155 (34.8)
3 n/N (%)63/119 (52.9)268/408 (65.7)101/155 (65.2)
Artery with culprit lesion n/N (%) 0.003
Left anterior descending45/119 (37.8)176/408 (43.1)66/155 (28.4)
Left circumflex21/119 (17.6)98/408 (24.0)27/155 (17.4)
Right coronary46/119 (38.7)100/408 (24.5)44/155 (28.4)
Left main7/119 (5.9)27/408 (6.6)18/155 (11.6)
Bypass0/119 (0.0)7/408 (1.7)0/155 (0.0)
Left ventricular ejection fraction‒%
Median (IQR)38 (30, 48)33 (25, 40)30 (20, 38)0.01
IQR = interquartile range; BMI = body mass index; CAD = coronary artery disease; GFR = glomerular filtration rate; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention; CABG = coronary artery bypass graft; LBBB = left bundle branch block.
Table
Table 2. Procedural characteristics.
Table 2. Procedural characteristics.
No
Ventilation		Ventilation at AdmissionVentilation within Day 1 after Admission
n = 119n = 408n = 156p-Value
Arterial access no/total n/N (%)
Femoral85/119 (71.4)352/408 (86.3)124/155 (80.0)<0.001
Radial34/119 (28.6)60/408 (14.7)32/155 (20.6)0.002
Brachial0/119 (0.0)2/408 (0.5)1/155 (0.6)0.71
Stent in culprit lesion n/N (%)
Any115/119 (96.6)391/408 (95.8)142/155 (91.6)0.08
Bare metal6/115 (5.2)21/391 (5.4)10/142 (7.0)0.74
Drug eluting105/115 (91.3)373/391 (95.4)133/142 (93.7)0.23
Direct Stenting n/N (%)27/119 (22.7)78/408 (19.1)28/155 (18.1)0.60
Aspiration thrombectomy before stenting n/N (%) 27/119 (22.7)43/408 (10.5)28/155 (18.1)0.76
TIMI grade for blood flow n/N (%)
Before PCI n/N (%) <0.001
077/116 (66.4)191/404 (47.3)96/153 (62.7)
I10/116 (8.6)56/404 (13.9)16/153 (10.5)
II15/116 (12.9)67/404 (16.6)24/153 (15.7)
III14/116 (12.1)90/404 (22.3)17/153 (11.1)
After PCI n/N (%) 0.07
01/118 (0.8)19/405 (4.7)7/154 (4.5)
I1/118 (0.8)10/405 (2.5)9/154 (5.8)
II10/118 (8.5)25/405 (6.2)13/154 (8.4)
III106/118 (89.8)351/405 (86.7)125/154 (81.2)
Mechanical support n/N (%)25/119 (21.0)107/408 (26.2)61/156 (39.1)0.002
IABP12/25 (48.0)19/107 (17.8)19/61 (31.1)0.004
Impella 2.53/25 (12.0)21/107 (19.6)10/61 (16.4)0.64
Impella CP5/25 (20.0)30/107 (28.0)13/61 (21.3)0.52
TandemHeart0/25 (0.0)2/107 (1.9)0/61 (0.0)0.44
ECMO1/25 (4.0)25/107 (23.4)19/61 (31.1)0.026
Other4/25 (16.0)11/107 (10.3)5/61 (8.2)0.56
Mild induced hypothermia n/N (%)1/119 (0.8)205/406 (50.5)23/156 (14.7)< 0.001
Procedural success (TIMI 3 flow or successful complete revascularization) n/N (%)105/108 (97.2)351/377 (93.1)126/137 (92.0)0.21
Duration of mechanical ventilation‒days
Median (IQR) n = 03 (1, 8)2 (1, 6)< 0.001
Duration of ICU treatment‒days
Median (IQR) 3 (2, 6)6 (2, 12)4 (1, 11)< 0.001
Catecholamine requirement n/N (%)75/119 (63.0)391/406 (96.3)146/156 (93.6)< 0.001
Duration of catecholamine days
Median (IQR) 1 (1, 3)2 (1, 5)2 (1, 5)< 0.001
Days to hemodynamic stabilization‒days
Median (IQR) 1 (1, 4)3 (1, 6)2 (1, 8)< 0.001
TIMI=thrombosis in myocardial infarction; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention; IABP = intra-aortic balloon pump; ECMO = ExtraCorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; IQR = interquartile range;
Table
Table 3. Clinical outcomes at 30 days.
Table 3. Clinical outcomes at 30 days.
No
Ventilation		Ventilation at AdmissionVentilation within Day 1 after Admission
n = 119n = 408n = 156p-Value
Primary endpoint n/N (%)
Death25/119 (21.0)202/407 (49.6)96/156 (61.5)<0.001
Secondary endpoints n/N (%)
Renal replacement therapy9/119 (7.6)63/407 (15.5)24/156 (15.4)0.08
Myocardial Infarction0/119 (0.0)7/407 (1.7)0/156 (0.0)0.09
Rehospitalization1/119 (0.8)1/407 (0.2)0/156 (0.0)0.43
Repeat revascularization22/119 (18.5)46/407 (11.3)18/156 (11.5)0.10
Safety endpoints n/N (%)
Bleeding event20/119 (16.8)94/407 (23.1)34/156 (21.8)0.10
Stroke2/119 (1.7)12/407 (2.9)9/156 (5.8)0.13

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rubini Giménez, M.; Miller, P.E.; Alviar, C.L.; van Diepen, S.; Granger, C.B.; Montalescot, G.; Windecker, S.; Maier, L.; Serpytis, P.; Serpytis, R.; et al. Outcomes Associated with Respiratory Failure for Patients with Cardiogenic Shock and Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Substudy of the CULPRIT-SHOCK Trial. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 860. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030860

AMA Style

Rubini Giménez M, Miller PE, Alviar CL, van Diepen S, Granger CB, Montalescot G, Windecker S, Maier L, Serpytis P, Serpytis R, et al. Outcomes Associated with Respiratory Failure for Patients with Cardiogenic Shock and Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Substudy of the CULPRIT-SHOCK Trial. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2020; 9(3):860. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030860

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rubini Giménez, Maria, P. Elliott Miller, Carlos L. Alviar, Sean van Diepen, Christopher B. Granger, Gilles Montalescot, Stephan Windecker, Lars Maier, Pranas Serpytis, Rokas Serpytis, and et al. 2020. "Outcomes Associated with Respiratory Failure for Patients with Cardiogenic Shock and Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Substudy of the CULPRIT-SHOCK Trial" Journal of Clinical Medicine 9, no. 3: 860. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030860

APA Style

Rubini Giménez, M., Miller, P. E., Alviar, C. L., van Diepen, S., Granger, C. B., Montalescot, G., Windecker, S., Maier, L., Serpytis, P., Serpytis, R., Oldroyd, K. G., Noc, M., Fuernau, G., Huber, K., Sandri, M., de Waha-Thiele, S., Schneider, S., Ouarrak, T., Zeymer, U., ... Thiele, H. (2020). Outcomes Associated with Respiratory Failure for Patients with Cardiogenic Shock and Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Substudy of the CULPRIT-SHOCK Trial. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(3), 860. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030860

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop