Cardiogenic Shock.

Effect of Moderate Hypothermia vs Normothermia on 30-Day Mortality in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Receiving Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Posted by

0


Question  Does early use of moderate hypothermia (33-34 °C) compared with strict normothermia (36-37 °C) improve mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock receiving venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)?

Findings  In this randomized clinical trial that included 334 patients who had been endotracheally intubated and were treated with venoarterial ECMO for less than 6 hours for refractory cardiogenic shock, mortality at 30 days was 42% for patients in the moderate hypothermia group vs 51% in the normothermia group. This difference was not statistically significant.

Meaning  For patients with cardiogenic shock receiving venoarterial ECMO, moderate hypothermia for 24 hours compared with normothermia did not significantly decrease 30-day mortality.Abstract

Importance  The optimal approach to the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) during cardiogenic shock is uncertain.

Objective  To determine whether early use of moderate hypothermia (33-34 °C) compared with strict normothermia (36-37 °C) improves mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock receiving venoarterial ECMO.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Randomized clinical trial of patients (who were eligible if they had been endotracheally intubated and were receiving venoarterial ECMO for cardiogenic shock for <6 hours) conducted in the intensive care units at 20 French cardiac shock care centers between October 2016 and July 2019. Of 786 eligible patients, 374 were randomized. Final follow-up occurred in November 2019.

Interventions  Early moderate hypothermia (33-34 °C; n = 168) for 24 hours or strict normothermia (36-37 °C; n = 166).

Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary outcome was mortality at 30 days. There were 31 secondary outcomes including mortality at days 7, 60, and 180; a composite outcome of death, heart transplant, escalation to left ventricular assist device implantation, or stroke at days 30, 60, and 180; and days without requiring a ventilator or kidney replacement therapy at days 30, 60, and 180. Adverse events included rates of severe bleeding, sepsis, and number of units of packed red blood cells transfused during venoarterial ECMO.

Results  Among the 374 patients who were randomized, 334 completed the trial (mean age, 58 [SD, 12] years; 24% women) and were included in the primary analysis. At 30 days, 71 patients (42%) in the moderate hypothermia group had died vs 84 patients (51%) in the normothermia group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.45 to 1.13], P = .15; risk difference, −8.3% [95% CI, −16.3% to −0.3%]). For the composite outcome of death, heart transplant, escalation to left ventricular assist device implantation, or stroke at day 30, the adjusted odds ratio was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.96; P = .03) for the moderate hypothermia group compared with the normothermia group and the risk difference was −11.5% (95% CI, −23.2% to 0.2%). Of the 31 secondary outcomes, 30 were inconclusive. The incidence of moderate or severe bleeding was 41% in the moderate hypothermia group vs 42% in the normothermia group. The incidence of infections was 52% in both groups. The incidence of bacteremia was 20% in the moderate hypothermia group vs 30% in the normothermia group.

Conclusions and Relevance  In this randomized clinical trial involving patients with refractory cardiogenic shock treated with venoarterial ECMO, early application of moderate hypothermia for 24 hours did not significantly increase survival compared with normothermia. However, because the 95% CI was wide and included a potentially important effect size, these findings should be considered inconclusive.

PCI Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock.

Posted by

0


Abstract

Background In patients who have acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock, early revascularization of the culprit artery by means of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves outcomes. However, the majority of patients with cardiogenic shock have multivessel disease, and whether PCI should be performed immediately for stenoses in nonculprit arteries is controversial. Methods In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 706 patients who had multivessel disease, acute myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock to one of two initial revascularization strategies: either PCI of the culprit lesion only, with the option of staged revascularization of nonculprit lesions, or immediate multivessel PCI. The primary end point was a composite of death or severe renal failure leading to renal-replacement therapy within 30 days after randomization. Safety end points included bleeding and stroke. Results At 30 days, the composite primary end point of death or renal-replacement therapy had occurred in 158 of the 344 patients (45.9%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group and in 189 of the 341 patients (55.4%) in the multivessel PCI group (relative risk, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01). The relative risk of death in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group as compared with the multivessel PCI group was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.98; P=0.03), and the relative risk of renal-replacement therapy was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.49 to 1.03; P=0.07). The time to hemodynamic stabilization, the risk of catecholamine therapy and the duration of such therapy, the levels of troponin T and creatine kinase, and the rates of bleeding and stroke did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusions Among patients who had multivessel coronary artery disease and acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock, the 30-day risk of a composite of death or severe renal failure leading to renal-replacement therapy was lower among those who initially underwent PCI of the culprit lesion only than among those who underwent immediate multivessel PCI.