Cardiogenic shock

Simon Topalian, MD; Fredric Ginsberg, MD, FACC; Joseph E. Parrillo, MD, FACC

Cardiogenic shock is the most common cause of death in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction and is associated with a poor prognosis. More than 75% of cases are due to extensive left ventricular infarction and ventricular failure. Other causes include right ventricular infarction and papillary muscle rupture with acute severe mitral regurgitation. Activation of neurohormonal systems and the systemic inammatory response worsens shock. To improve outcomes, cardiogenic shock needs to be recognized early in its course and its cause needs to be diagnosed rapidly. Treatment strategies using intra-aortic bal-

loon counterpulsation and emergency revascularization by percutaneous coronary interventions or coronary bypass surgery have been shown to improve outcomes. To decrease the incidence of cardiogenic shock, public education regarding early presentation to hospital in the course of acute chest pain is important. Emergency medical transport systems may need to take patients with complicated acute myocardial infarction to hospitals with the capability to perform urgent revascularization. (Crit Care Med 2008; 36[Suppl.]:S66S74)

ardiogenic shock is a lifethreatening emergency and the most common cause of death in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction. Studies of this condition over the past 10 yrs have changed the approach to cardiogenic shock patients so that there is now an opportunity to improve on the high mortality rate of this condition.

Incidence and Epidemiology

CS is a major complication of myocardial infarction. The incidence of CS has remained stable over the past 3 decades despite advances in diagnostic and therapeutic modalities. In an early trial of thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction, the incidence of CS complicating acute myocardial infarction was 7.2% (2). In an observational community-wide study, the incidence of CS averaged 7.1% over a 23-yr period from 1975 through 1997 (3). In a more recent analysis of the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction (NRMI) covering the period from June 1995 through May 2004, CS developed in 8.6% of patients with acute myocardial infarction (ST-segment elevation or left bundle branch block) hospitalized in 775 U.S. hospitals with revascularization capability (4) (Fig. 1). The prognosis of CS is extremely poor. Mortality rates were reported at 50% to 80% in older series (1). In-hospital mortality in the SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK (SHOCK) Trial Registry was 60% (5). In the NRMI data, the overall in-hospital mortality decreased from 60.3% in 1995 to 47.9% in 2004 (4). In the NRMI database, 29% of patients with CS were in shock as they presented to hospital, and 71% developed CS after admission (4) (Fig. 1). Patients 75 yrs old were slightly more likely to present with CS. CS patients were more likely to have a history of hypertension, dyslipidemia, and prior coronary angioplasty. In

Denition
Cardiogenic shock (CS) is dened as persistent hypotension and tissue hypoperfusion due to cardiac dysfunction in the presence of adequate intravascular volume and left ventricular lling pressure. Clinical signs include hypotension, tachycardia, oliguria, cool extremities, and altered mental status. Hemodynamic ndings are sustained hypotension with systolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg for 30 mins, low cardiac index 2.2 L/min/m2, and elevated pulmonary artery occlusion pressure 15 mm Hg (1).
From Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ (ST, JEP); Robert Wood Johnson Medical School at Camden, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (FG, JEP); and Cooper Heart Institute (JEP). Dr. Parrillo has disclosed that he holds consultancies with GlaxoSmithKline, Ortho Biotech, Artesian Therapeutics, and Arginex. The remaining authors have not disclosed any potential conicts of interest. For information regarding this article, E-mail: [email protected] Copyright 2007 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Lippincott Williams & Wilkins DOI: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000296268.57993.90

the SHOCK Trial Registry, the median time from onset of myocardial infarction to shock was 7 hrs (5). Rates of recurrent myocardial infarction or ischemia precipitating CS were 9.3% and 19.7%, respectively. Infarction location was anterior in 55% of cases and in multiple locations in 50% (5). CS can occur in the setting of STelevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) as well as non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). In the Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO)-IIb trial, CS developed in 4.2% of STEMI and 2.5% of NSTEMI patients. In the latter group, CS tended to occur later after presentation (76.3 hrs vs. 9.6 hrs). NSTEMI patients with CS were older and had higher rates of diabetes mellitus, prior myocardial infarction, heart failure, azotemia, bypass surgery, peripheral vascular disease, and threevessel coronary disease. In-hospital and 30-day mortality rates in STEMI and NSTEMI patients were similar (6, 7). Patients with CS have extensive coronary artery disease. Angiographic data from the SHOCK Trial Registry revealed that 53.4% of patients had three-vessel disease and 15.5% had signicant left main stenosis (8).

Etiology
Many conditions may lead to CS (Table 1). However, left ventricular failure due to extensive acute myocardial infarction remains the most common cause. In
Crit Care Med 2008 Vol. 36, No. 1 (Suppl.)

S66

Figure 1. Frequency of cardiogenic shock among patients in the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. Includes total shock at hospital presentation and shock that develops after hospital presentation as a clinical event. For hospitals with open-heart surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention capability, the ST-elevation myocardial infarction population was 293,633. Data are through May 2004. Reproduced with permission from Babaev A, Frederick PD, Paste DJ, et al: Trends in management and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. JAMA 2005; 294:448 454.

Table 1. Causes of cardiogenic shock Acute myocardial infarction Pump failure Large infarction Smaller infarction with preexisting left ventricular dysfunction Infarction extension Severe recurrent ischemia Infarction expansion Mechanical complications Acute mitral regurgitation caused by papillary muscle rupture Ventricular septal defect Free-wall rupture Pericardial tamponade Right ventricular infarction Other conditions End-stage cardiomyopathy Myocarditis Myocardial contusion Prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass Septic shock with severe myocardial depression Left ventricular outow tract obstruction Aortic stenosis Hypertropic obstructive cardiomyopathy Obstruction to left ventricular lling Mitral stenosis Left atrial myxoma Acute mitral regurgitation (chordal rupture) Acute aortic insufciency Acute massive pulmonary embolism Acute stress cardiomyopathy Pheochromocytoma

catheterization laboratory complication, accounted for 6.7%.

Pathophysiology
Most commonly, CS occurs after a massive and extensive myocardial infarction or severe myocardial ischemia leading to impaired left ventricular function, reduced systolic contractility, and decreased cardiac output and arterial blood pressure. Coronary perfusion will decrease and further compromise coronary reserve. Compensatory neurohormonal responses take place, which include activation of the sympathetic and reninangiotensin systems, leading to systemic vasoconstriction, tachycardia, and uid retention. These mechanisms are maladaptive and worsen myocardial ischemia. Thus, ischemia begets ischemia, leading to a progressive downward spiral of worsening ischemia, progressive deterioration of myocardial function, and worsening shock (1) (Fig. 2). At the cellular level, inadequate oxygen delivery to myocytes affects cellular adenosine triphosphate production. Immediately, energy metabolism shifts from aerobic to anaerobic glycolysis with resultant lactic acid production. Intracellular ionic calcium rises and intracellular sodium competes to expel calcium (9). If hypoperfusion and ischemia are severe, as occurs in CS, myonecrosis ensues with mitochondrial swelling and subsequent plasma membrane disruption. This ischemic cascade results in metabolic and biochemical alterations, which lead to left ventricular diastolic dysfunction from impaired myocardial relaxation and decreased compliance. This leads to increased left ventricular lling pressures, manifesting as pulmonary congestion and edema. This in turn increases wall stress

and further compromises coronary perfusion. Echocardiographic data from the SHOCK Trial showed that restrictive left ventricular lling, as assessed by Doppler mitral inow deceleration time, was present in most patients (60.9%) (10). This restrictive pattern predicted pulmonary artery occlusion pressures 20 mm Hg. New evidence has emerged that has led to expansion of the CS paradigm (11). Wide variations in left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular size, and systemic vascular resistance in patients with CS suggest that pathophysiologic mechanisms of CS may vary among patients. About one fth of patients with CS complicating myocardial infarction in the SHOCK Trial had clinical evidence of a systemic inammatory response syndrome, marked by fever, leukocytosis, and low systemic vascular resistance (12). Attempts to inhibit this inammatory response focused on nitric oxide (NO), an endogenous vasodilator, which is produced by nitric oxide synthase (NOS). Inducible NOS (iNOS) is expressed at pathologic levels in many cells, especially myocytes, and has many deleterious effects (11). High levels of iNOS are associated with left ventricular dysfunction (13). Early work with a nonisoformspecic NOS inhibitor, N-monomethylL-arginine (L-NMMA), had promising effects on the hemodynamics of patients with CS, including signicantly increasing urine output and mean arterial blood pressure (14). A mortality benet was seen in a small group of CS patients treated with this NOS inhibitor (15) and led to larger randomized studies. However, the Tilarginine Acetate Injection Randomized International Study in Unstable AMI Patients/Cardiogenic Shock (TRIUMPH) Trial, a phase III randomized trial to study the benet of the NOS inhibitor L-NMMA in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating AMI, did not show any benet (16).

the SHOCK Trial Registry, left ventricular failure accounted for 78.5% of cases of CS complicating acute myocardial infarction. Acute severe mitral regurgitation accounted for 6.9%, ventricular septal rupture 3.9%, isolated right ventricular infarction 2.8%, and tamponade or cardiac rupture 1.4% (5). Other causes, such as coexistent severe valvular heart disease, excess -blocker or calcium channel blocker therapy, severe dilated cardiomyopathy, recent hemorrhage, or cardiac
Crit Care Med 2008 Vol. 36, No. 1 (Suppl.)

Approach to the Patient With Cardiogenic Shock

The most important aspects of the initial care of the patient with cardiogenic shock are recognizing the condition early in its course and understanding its cause. Rapid assessment of the history, physical examination, and chest radiograph is mandatory, recognizing the signs of heart failure, pulmonary edema (sometimes with clear lung elds on examinaS67

Figure 2. Classic shock paradigm, as illustrated by S. Hollenberg, is shown in black. The inuence of the inammatory response syndrome initiated by a large myocardial infarction is illustrated in gray. LVEDP, left ventricular end-diastolic pressure; NO, nitric oxide; iNOS, inducible NO synthase; SVR, systemic vascular resistance. Reproduced with permission from Hochman JS: Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: Expanding the paradigm. Circulation 2003; 107:2998 3002. Table 2. Hemodynamic proles Left ventricular shock Right ventricular shock Mitral regurgitation Ventricular septal defect Pericardial tamponade High PAOP, low CO, high SVR High RA, RA/PAOP 0.8, exaggerated RA y descent, RV square root sign Large PAOP V wave Large PAOP V wave, oxygen saturation step-up ( 5%) from RA to RV Equalization of diastolic pressures 20 mm Hg

PAOP, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure; CO, cardiac output; SVR, systemic vascular resistance; RA, right atrial; RV, right ventricular.

tion), and tissue hypoperfusion, manifesting as low blood pressure, rapid heart rate, agitation, confusion, oliguria, cyanosis, and cool and clammy skin. Appreciating the electrocardiographic signs of acute myocardial ischemia, myocardial infarction, new left bundle branch block, and arrhythmias is critical. Rapid echocardiographic assessment is key. The echo-Doppler study will assess regional and global left ventricular function, right ventricular size and function, the presence of mitral regurgitation and other valve abnormalities, pericardial effusion, and possible septal rupture. Echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction was found to be similar to ejection fraction as assessed by left ventriculography and can be used as the sole initial evaluation of systolic left ventricular function in patients with CS (17). Differential diagnoses to consider in paS68

tients with CS include hemorrhage, sepsis, aortic dissection, and massive pulmonary embolism. Patients must be assessed regarding the need for sedation, intubation, and mechanical ventilation in order to correct hypoxemia and reduce the work of breathing (1, 18, 19). Initial medical therapy includes intravenous uid challenge for patients with signicant hypotension, if there is no evidence for pulmonary edema or signicant elevation of jugular venous pressure. If CS is due to acute myocardial infarction or ischemia, emergency cardiac catheterization and revascularization need to take place in patients believed suitable for this approach (discussed subsequently). The use of an intra-arterial catheter is helpful in managing patients in shock (20). Pulmonary artery catheterization

can assist in the precise measurement of volume status, left and right ventricular lling pressures, and cardiac output. It is also valuable in diagnosing right ventricular infarction and the mechanical complications of acute myocardial infarction (Table 2). Hemodynamic measurements can help guide uid management and the use of inotropic agents and vasopressors. The American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines list pulmonary artery catheterization as a class I recommendation in patients with hypotension not responding to uid administration or when mechanical complications of myocardial infarction are suspected and echocardiography is not available. Pulmonary artery catheterization is a class IIa recommendation for patients in CS who have persistent signs of hypoperfusion and in patients receiving inotropic and vasopressor drugs (20, 21). The goal of the initial medical therapy of CS is to maintain arterial pressure adequate for tissue perfusion. Initially, dopamine is the drug of choice because it acts as an inotrope as well as a vasopressor. Intravenous norepinephrine is a more potent vasoconstrictor, with somewhat less effect on heart rate, and should be used in patients with more severe hypotension. These drugs increase heart rate and systemic vascular resistance and thus increase myocardial oxygen demand, and they may aggravate ischemia and lead to cardiac arrhythmias. Doses should be adjusted to the lowest levels that improve tissue perfusion (1, 18, 20). Dobutamine, an inotrope with arterial dilator properties, can be used in patients with less severe hypotension or can be combined with vasopressors to improve cardiac output (18). There also have been reports of the effective use of vasopressin in patients with CS (22). Intravenous diuretics are used in patients with pulmonary edema and elevated pulmonary artery occlusion pressure. Aspirin should be given to patients with acute myocardial infarction. Intravenous amiodarone can be given for patients with severe arrhythmia. The use of -blockers and nitrates should be avoided in the acute phase (20). Some patients will demonstrate signs of tissue hypoperfusion with systolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg. This has been termed nonhypotensive cardiogenic shock or preshock. In the
Crit Care Med 2008 Vol. 36, No. 1 (Suppl.)

SHOCK Trial Registry, these patients demonstrated the hemodynamic prole of elevated pulmonary artery occlusion pressure with low cardiac index and high systemic vascular resistance. The hospital mortality rate in this group of patients was 43%, very high but lower than in patients diagnosed with fullblown cardiogenic shock. The mortality in patients with preshock compares with a mortality rate of 26% in patients with hypotension without signs of hypoperfusion. This preshock state needs to be recognized early so that appropriate, urgent diagnostic and therapeutic measures can be prescribed (23) (Fig. 3).

Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation (IABP)

IABP is very useful to support patients with CS. This device will increase coronary blood ow, decrease left ventricular afterload, and decrease left ventricular end-diastolic pressure without increasing oxygen demand (1, 19, 24). Cardiac output is increased only modestly, and this device does not provide total circulatory support (24). The efcacy of IABP in acute myocardial infarction complicated by CS has not been evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. In nonrandomized trials, the use of IABP is associated with decreased mortality, but the use of this

device is consistently associated with more frequent use of revascularization therapies and other aggressive supportive measures (25). Its use was not associated with improved survival in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the NRMI database. Complications of IABP include bleeding, thrombocytopenia, hemolysis, leg ischemia, aortic dissection, femoral artery injury, thromboembolism, and sepsis. The complication rate has been reduced with percutaneous insertion and with smaller pumps (26). Complication rates have been reported at 10% to 30%, with major complication rates of 2.5% to

Figure 3. Emergency management of complicated ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Practice Guidelines 2004. BP, blood pressure; IV, intravenous; MI, myocardial. Adapted with permission from Anbe DT, Armstrong PW, Bates ER, et al: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction). ACC/AHA Practice Guidelines 2004. http://www.acc.org/clinical/guidelines/stemi/index.pdf. Accessed January 2007.

Crit Care Med 2008 Vol. 36, No. 1 (Suppl.)

S69

3.0% (25, 26). Patients usually must be anticoagulated during IABP use. Contraindications to the use of IABP include severe aortic insufciency, severe peripheral vascular disease, and aortic aneurysm (18). Current ACC/AHA guidelines list IABP as a class I recommendation for patients with low cardiac output states, hypotension, and CS not responding quickly to other measures (20). In the NRMI database, IABP was used in 39% of cases with CS, and the frequency of IABP use did not change over the 10-yr period 19952004 (4). In the Benchmark Counterpulsation Outcomes Registry, CS accounted for 27% of the use of IABP and was associated with a mortality rate of 38.7% (26). IABP is also recommended for use in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by severe mitral regurgitation or ventricular septal rupture, before urgent cardiac surgery, as well as in patients with right ventricular infarction not responding to uid challenge and inotropic therapy. In summary, the use of IABP in CS improves the short-term hemodynamic prole and may allow for improvement in function of ischemic myocardium. It likely does not improve outcomes unless it is combined with denitive coronary revascularization (25).

Emergency Revascularization
Many observations and nonrandomized studies have shown that the majority of patients with acute myocardial infarction who develop CS do so hours after onset of infarction, often after hospital

presentation (2, 4, 5, 27). Shock that has a delayed onset results from infarction extension, reocclusion of a previously patent coronary artery, recurrent ischemia, or decompensation of left ventricular function in the noninfarcted zone because of metabolic derangements (1). The most successful strategy to successfully treat acute myocardial infarction is rapid restoration of ow in the infarctrelated artery (28), and primary coronary angioplasty results in better outcomes than brinolytic therapy (29). Many reports have suggested that early mechanical revascularization with either PCI or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) is associated with survival benet. The landmark SHOCK trial prospectively randomized 302 patients with CS due to acute myocardial infarction and left ventricular failure to emergency early revascularization (ERV) with PCI or CABG vs. initial medical stabilization (IMS) with drug therapy and IABP. PCI accounted for 64% of revascularization and CABG was performed in 36%. The 30-day mortality rate, the primary outcome measured, was lower in the early revascularization group (47% vs. 56%), which was not statistically signicant. However, late mortality rates were significantly improved in patients who received ERV (30). At 6 months, 1 yr, and 6 yrs, a statistically signicant absolute survival difference of 13% was seen in patients who received ERV (31, 32). At 6 yrs, overall survival was 32.8% in the ERV group and 19.6% in the IMS group. In patients who survived hospitalization, the 6-yr survival rate in patients with ERV was 62.4% vs. 44.4% in IMS patients. (Fig. 4) There was no signicant difference in

long-term survival between patients treated with PCI or CABG. Quality of life measures were also better in patients who had received ERV (33). Unfortunately, invasive procedures continue to be underused in patients with CS (4, 5) In the NRMI, primary PCI use increased from 27.4% in 1995 to only 54.4% in 2004 (4 yrs after the SHOCK trial was published). CABG was used in only 3.2% of patients. This increased use of PCI for CS was likely translated into a mortality benet (60.3% mortality in 1995, declining to 47.9% in 2004) (4). Patients who were transferred to hospitals with revascularization capability also had better outcome with ERV (34). This benet from early mechanical revascularization was incorporated in the ACC/AHA practice guidelines. Both PCI and CABG are class I recommendations for patients 75 yrs old with STEMI or acute myocardial infarction with left bundle branch block, who develop shock within 36 hrs of onset of myocardial infarction (20, 35). Patients 75 yrs old had worse outcomes with ERV in the SHOCK trial compared with IMS. However, the number of patients treated with ERV in this age group was relatively small (30 32). Analysis from the SHOCK registry showed that elderly patients were treated less aggressively, and their in-hospital mortality was higher compared with younger patients (76% vs. 55%). However, outcomes in elderly patients in the registry who were treated with ERV were better than in patients who were not revascularized (36). Clearly, patient selection plays a key role. Elderly patients with good functional status, shorter duration of shock,

Figure 4. Among all patients, the survival rates in the early revascularization (ERV) and initial medical stabilization (IMS) groups, respectively, were 41.4% vs. 28.3% at 3 yrs and 32.8% vs. 19.6% at 6 yrs. With exclusion of eight patients with aortic dissection, tamponade, or severe mitral regurgitation identied shortly after randomization, the survival curves remained signicantly different (p .02), with a 14.0% absolute difference at 6 yrs. Among hospital survivors, the survival rates in the ERV and IMS groups, respectively, were 78.8% vs. 64.3% at 3 yrs and 62.4% vs. 44.4% at 6 yrs. Reproduced with permission from Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al: Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 2006: 295:25112515.

S70

Crit Care Med 2008 Vol. 36, No. 1 (Suppl.)

Mechanical Complications of Acute Myocardial Infarction (Figure 5)

Right Ventricular Infarction. Right ventricular myocardial infarction (RVI) can accompany acute inferior wall myocardial infarction and lead to cardiogenic shock. It is estimated that 10% to 15% of inferior wall myocardial infarctions are complicated by hemodynamically signicant RVI (1, 20). RVI accounted for 2.8% of cases of CS in the SHOCK Trial Registry (5). Acute right ventricular dysfunction and right ventricular failure lead to decreased left ventricular preload, decreased cardiac output, and cardiogenic shock. Right ventricular dilation and shift of the intraventricular septum toward the left ventricle can further compromise left ventricular function and worsen cardiogenic shock. RVI results from occlusion of the right coronary artery proximal to the origin of the right ventricular branches. In the era before PCI for acute myocardial infarction, in-hospital mortality from RVI was around 7.1%, less than the mortality rate for anterior myocardial infarction but higher than that for inferior myocardial infarction without RVI (40). RVI was also an independent predictor of 6-month mortality and was associated with higher rates of CS and sustained ventricular arrhythmia. The diagnosis of RVI should be strongly considered in patients who present with acute inferior wall myocardial infarction with hypotension, clear lung elds, and elevated jugular venous pressure or a positive Kussmauls sign. Diagnostic ndings on electrocardiogram include 1-mm ST-segment elevation in V1 and in the right precordial lead V4R, although these ndings may be transient. Emergency transthoracic echocardiogram will show a dilated, hypocontractile right ventricle and may show bulging of the septum into the left ventricle. Right heart catheterization will demonstrate a mean right atrial pressure 10 mm Hg and right atrial pressure 80% of pulmonary artery occlusion pressure. Cardiac index will be low. Initial therapy for hypotensive patients with RVI is a uid challenge if jugular venous pressure is not elevated. Up to 1 L of intravenous saline should be infused, which may correct hypotension. Larger volumes may cause signicant right ventricular dilation and impair left ventricular output. Inotropic medicaS71

Figure 5. Mechanical complications of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Phy Exam, physical examination; PA, pulmonary artery; MI, myocardial infarction; JVD, jugular venous distention; EMD, electromechanical dissociation; Peric., pericardial; Diast Press Equal., diastolic pressure equalization; Regurg., regurgitation; PCW, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure. Reproduced with permission from Anbe DT, Armstrong PW, Bates ER, et al: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction). ACC/AHA Practice Guidelines 2004. http://www.acc.org/clinical/guidelines/stemi/index.pdf. Accessed January 2007.

and absence of serious medical comorbidities should be carefully selected for aggressive therapies, including revascularization (21).

Fibrinolytic Therapy in Cardiogenic Shock

Urgent transfer to the cardiac catheterization laboratory for coronary angiography and emergency coronary intervention has largely supplanted thrombolytic therapy as rst-line treatment for patients with acute myocardial infarction and CS. Fibrinolytics are not as effective as accomplishing reperfusion in STEMI with CS as in patients with STEMI without cardiogenic shock (1, 18). This is hypothesized to be due to decreased penetration of the coronary thrombus by brinolytics in hypotensive patients, a greater incidence of coronary artery reocclusion after thrombolysis, and longer times required to achieve coronary patency (1, 18, 19). In an overview of brinolytic trials, analysis of patients in CS showed nonsignicant reductions in mortality with brinolytic therapy. Subgroup analyses in individual trials have shown no effect on mortality (18). In the NRMI database, IABP combined with thrombolytic therapy was associated with a signicantly lower mortality rate (49%) compared with thrombolytic therapy alone (67%) (25). In the SHOCK Trial Registry, the addition of IABP to thrombolytic therapy decreased mortality signicantly from 63% with thrombolysis
Crit Care Med 2008 Vol. 36, No. 1 (Suppl.)

alone to 47% with thrombolysis and IABP. Thrombolytic therapy was associated with a lower mortality than in patients who did not receive any reperfusion therapy (37). However, mortality in CS patients treated with brinolytic therapy combined with IABP was still higher than in patients who received revascularization with PCI or coronary bypass surgery. The development of CS after brinolytic therapy is more likely to occur in older patients, patients with Killip class IIIII heart failure on presentation, and patients with higher heart rate and lower blood pressure on admission (38). When thrombolytic therapy was given to patients with acute myocardial infarction before hospital arrival, during ambulance transport, the incidence of subsequent CS was lowered from 11.5% to 6.8% (39). Current guidelines have relegated thrombolytic therapy for CS as a class I recommendation only in patients with STEMI who are unsuitable for invasive therapy with PCI or bypass surgery (20). In the NMRI observational database, the use of thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction and CS declined from 19.9% to 5.6% of cases in the years 19952004 (4). The strategy of administering brinolytics with or without IABP is recommended if patients present to a hospital that does not have a catheterization laboratory or when there will be unavoidable delays in transport to the catheterization laboratory (1).

tions and IABP are useful in patients who do not respond to uid challenge (20). IABP helps to decrease wall stress and increase coronary perfusion pressure (1). Bradycardia and heart block should be corrected, and atrioventricular sequential pacing may be necessary to maintain atrioventricular synchrony and effective cardiac output. Most patients with RVI will have spontaneous recovery of right ventricular function, but this may occur slowly and may be incomplete. Urgent revascularization with PCI is now the cornerstone of therapy. In a study of 53 patients with acute inferior wall myocardial infarction complicated by RVI, all 53 patients underwent emergency PCI (41). The right coronary artery was the culprit vessel in all cases. Seventy-seven percent of patients had successful intervention and reperfusion, and these patients demonstrated recovery of right ventricular function, decreased right heart pressures, and reduction in right ventricular size within 1 hr, with 95% recovery of normal right ventricular function in 35 days. Inhospital mortality was 2.4%. In the 12 patients with unsuccessful reperfusion, right ventricular dysfunction persisted at 24 hrs and only improved slowly during hospitalization. Ten of these 12 patients required support with inotropic drugs or IABP, and in-hospital mortality was 58.3%. Emergency revascularization efforts in these patients is now a class I recommendation in ACC/AHA guidelines for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. If coronary bypass surgery is believed to be needed for multivessel disease and signicant right ventricular dysfunction is present, then coronary bypass should be delayed for 4 wks, if possible, to allow for recovery of right ventricular function (20). Acute Severe Mitral Regurgitation. Acute severe mitral regurgitation, due to infarction and rupture of the head of a papillary muscle, is an uncommon cause of cardiogenic shock. In the SHOCK Trial Registry, 6.9% of 1,190 patients with cardiogenic shock had acute severe mitral regurgitation (5, 42). Acute severe mitral regurgitation was more likely to complicate inferior and/or posterior myocardial infarction (87% of cases of acute mitral regurgitation) than anterior myocardial infarction (34%). Acute severe mitral regurgitation usually occurs within the rst 24 hrs of acute myocardial infarction or may present at days 35. The diagnosis of acute severe mitral regurgiS72

tation should be suspected in patients who present with acute pulmonary edema complicating acute myocardial infarction, especially inferior wall myocardial infarction. The murmur of mitral regurgitation may be loud but also may be relatively unimpressive due to high left atrial pressures and a lower left ventricular/ left atrial systolic gradient. Diagnosis is made by urgent echocardiography. Acute severe mitral regurgitation is associated with a high in-hospital mortality. In the SHOCK Trial Registry, patients who underwent urgent mitral valve surgery had a 40% mortality rate. Patients who did not receive surgery had a 71% mortality rate. The overall 55% hospital mortality rate was not different from the registry cohort with cardiogenic shock due to left ventricular failure (42). In patients with acute severe mitral regurgitation, early diagnosis and aggressive support with inotropic drugs, IABP, and vasodilators (if blood pressure allows) are vital in appropriately selected patients. The ACC/AHA guidelines list urgent cardiac surgical repair as a class I recommendation (20). Postinfarction Ventricular Septal Rupture. Rupture of the intraventricular septum (VSR) can complicate acute myocardial infarction and lead to CS. This often occurs in the rst 24 hrs of infarction. This condition occurred in 1% of patients with STEMI in the GUSTO I study (20, 21) and accounted for 3.9% of the cases of CS in the SHOCK Trial Registry (15, 31). VSR may complicate either anterior or inferior wall STEMI. Patients will present with shock and pulmonary edema, and a loud holosystolic murmur is present on physical examination. Diagnosis is made by urgent Doppler echocardiography. A pattern of right ventricular volume overload is seen, with Doppler evidence of left-to-right shunting at ventricular level. The septal rupture may be visualized. Right heart catheterization will show higher oxygen saturations in the pulmonary artery than in the right atrium due to left-to-right shunting. However, when the diagnosis of VSR is made by echocardiography, performance of right heart catheterization should not delay surgical therapy. Urgent surgical repair of VSR is a class I recommendation in the ACC/AHA guidelines. However, this condition is associated with a very high mortality rate with surgical or medical therapy. Waiting for several days before surgery in order to let healing occur is not recommended

because many patients will die during this waiting period. In the SHOCK Trial Registry, 31 of 55 patients with VSR underwent surgery, with a mortality of 81%. Only 4% of patients survived without surgery (43). In the GUSTO I trial, 30-day mortality was 73.8% (21). Another series of 76 patients with VSR who underwent surgery reported that 79% of patients presented with CS, and 30-day postoperative mortality was 49% for these patients (44). Left Ventricular Free Wall Rupture and Cardiac Tamponade. Left ventricular free wall rupture is an uncommon, lethal complication of acute myocardial infarction. It is estimated to occur in 1% to 6% of patients with acute myocardial infarction (20), although the true incidence is difcult to ascertain as the majority of patients will die immediately after rupture from electromechanical dissociation. However, possibly 30% of free wall rupture may be spontaneously sealed off by elevated intrapericardial pressure from hemopericardium, and these patients may present with CS complicating acute myocardial infarction. The incidence of free wall rupture has decreased in the era of thrombolytic and primary angioplasty therapy for acute myocardial infarction. The diagnosis is made by emergency echocardiography, which shows a significant-sized pericardial effusion, either loculated or diffuse, and may show the area of rupture. In the SHOCK Trial Registry, 1.4% of cases of CS were caused by free wall rupture and usually occurred in the rst 24 hrs of infarction (2, 45). Twenty-one of 28 patients underwent surgery, with a 62% mortality rate. Six patients underwent pericardiocentesis only, and three survived. Another series listed operative mortality rates of 24% to 52% (46).

Ventricular Assist Devices (VADs)

VADs have been used in small series of highly selected patients with CS refractory to IABP and reperfusion strategies. The use of VADs should be considered in patients with very low cardiac output, 1.2 L/min/m2 (19). Newer VADs can be inserted percutaneously. The TandemHeart percutaneous VAD, inserted in the catheterization laboratory, uses a catheter directed into the left atrium via a transseptal puncture, unloading the left atrium and left ventricle. Blood is then pumped into a 15- to 17-Fr catheter inserted in the femoral artery, producing
Crit Care Med 2008 Vol. 36, No. 1 (Suppl.)

ows of 3.5 4.0 L/min. One report described 11 patients with acute myocardial infarction and CS refractory to inotropic and IABP therapy who received percutaneous VADs. These patients were supported for an average of 89 hrs, with mean cardiac index during VAD therapy of 2.6 L/min/m2. It was concluded from this small series that percutaneous VADs could be effective as a bridge to implanted VADs or cardiac transplant therapy, with a low incidence of adverse effects. This device cannot be used in patients with right ventricular failure or severe peripheral vascular disease (24, 47). Implanted VADs have also been used in patients with CS. In 49 patients treated with this device, 78% were successfully bridged to transplant. VADs were placed at an average of 6 days after myocardial infarction, and patients were supported for a mean time of 56 days until transplant. In-hospital mortality was only 33% in this group of patients (48). These patients had a 31% incidence in the need for dialysis and had a relatively high rate of infectious complications. Another series of 18 patients with CS received support with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and/or VAD and cardiac transplant therapy. In these highly selected patients, hospital mortality was 33% and 5-yr survival was 30% (49).

patients receive thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction in hospitals without revascularization capabilities, signs of failed thrombolysis should be recognized early, and these patients should be transferred quickly to tertiary centers with revascularization capabilities. In patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction, prompt recognition of the preshock state or the early signs of CS is vital. Once the diagnosis of CS is made, rapid evaluation and institution of supportive medical therapy, insertion of the IABP, and emergency revascularization need to be performed. Admission of patients to hospitals with revascularization capabilities, or even directly to the catheterization laboratory, has led to the greater utilization of these lifesaving therapies with improved mortality rates in several nonrandomized studies (30, 31, 50). It is unlikely that further large randomized controlled trials in patients with CS will be carried out. It is now necessary to improve systems of care in order to translate the benets of early revascularization to wide implementation.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

REFERENCES
1. Hollenberg SM, Kavinsky CJ, Parrillo JE: Cardiogenic shock. Ann Intern Med 1999; 131:4759 2. Holmes DR Jr, Bates ER, Kleiman NS, et al: Contemporary reperfusion therapy for cardiogenic shock after myocardial infarction: The GUSTO-I trial experience. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995; 26:668 674 3. Goldberg RJ, Samad NA, Yarzebski U, et al: Temporal trends in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1999; 340:11621168 4. Babaev A, Frederick PD, Paste DJ, et al: Trends in management and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. JAMA 2005; 294:448 454 5. Hochman JS, Buller CE, Sleeper LA, et al: Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarctionEtiologies, management and outcome: A report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36: 10631070 6. Holmes DR Jr, Berger PB, Hochman JS, et al: Cardiogenic shock in patients with acute ischemic syndromes with and without STsegment elevation. Circulation 1999; 100: 20672073 7. Jacobs AK, Franch JK, Col J, et al: Cardiogenic shock with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: A report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36:10911096 8. Chiu Wong S, Sanborn T, Sleeper LA, et al:

16.

Prevention of CS
Since most patients who develop CS after acute myocardial infarction do so at some time after presentation to hospital, there is an opportunity to prevent the occurrence of CS in individual patients, to reduce the overall incidence of CS, and to signicantly improve outcomes in patients who develop this potentially lethal complication. The rst step in prevention of CS involves educating the public, encouraging patients to present to hospital very early after the development of signicant chest pain or other symptoms of acute myocardial infarction. Patients should be directed to call the emergency ambulance system, so that transport to an emergency department can occur quickly. In addition, hospital transport systems need to be developed to allow patients with STEMI to be transported directly to hospitals with PCI and coronary surgery capabilities, avoiding delays inherent when acute myocardial infarction patients are admitted to hospitals without these facilities and then emergently transferred to tertiary centers. If
Crit Care Med 2008 Vol. 36, No. 1 (Suppl.)

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

Angiographic ndings and clinical correlates in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: A report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36:10771083 Kloner RA, Bolli R, Marban E, et al: Medical and cellular implication of stunning, hibernation, and preconditioning: An NHLBI workshop. Circulation 1998; 97:1848 1867 Reynolds HR, Anand SK, Fox JM, et al: Restrictive physiology shock: Observations from echocardiography. Am Heart J 2006; 151:890.e9 890.e15 Hochman JS: Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: Expanding the paradigm. Circulation 2003; 107:2998 3002 Kohsaka S, Menon V, Lowe AM, et al: Systemic inammatory response syndrome after acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165:16431650 Feng O, Lu X, Jones DL, et al: Increased inducible nitric oxide synthase expression contributes to myocardial dysfunction and higher mortality after myocardial infarction in mice. Circulation 2001; 104:700 704 Cotter G, Kaluski E, Blatt A, et al: L-MNMA (a nitric oxide synthase inhibitor) is effective in the treatment of cardiogenic shock. Circulation 2000; 101:1359 1361 Cotter G, Kaluski E, Milo O, et al: LINCS:LNAME (a nitric oxide synthase inhibitor in the treatment of refractory shock: A prospective randomized study. Eur Heart J 2003; 23:12871295 TRIUMPH Investigators, Alexander JH, Reynolds HR, et al: Effect of tilarginine acetate in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: The TRIUMPH randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2007; 297: 16571666 Berkowitz MJ, Picard MH, Harkness S, et al: Echocardiographic and angiographic correlations in patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 2006; 98:1004 1008 Ellis TC, Lev E, Yazbek NF, et al: Therapeutic strategies for cardiogenic shock, 2006. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med 2006; 8:79 94 Duvernoy CS, Bates ER: Management of cardiogenic shock attributable to acute myocardial infarction in the reperfusion era. J Intensive Care Med 2005; 4:188 198 Anbe DT, Armstrong PW, Bates ER, et al: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction). ACC/AHA Practice Guidelines 2004. http://www.acc.org/clinical/guidelines/ stemi/index.pdf. Accessed January 2007. Menon V, Hochman JS: Management of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Heart 2003; 88:531537

S73

22. Mann HJ, Nolan PE Jr: Update on the management of cardiogenic shock. Curr Opin Crit Care 2006; 12:431 436 23. Menon V, Slater JN, White HD, et al: Acute myocardial infarction complicated by systemic hypoperfusion without hypotension: Report of the SHCOK Trial Registry. Am J Med 2000; 108:374 380 24. Lee MS, Makkar RR: Percutaneous left ventricular support devices. Cardiol Clin 2006; 24:265275 25. Trost JC, Hillis LD: Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. Am J Cardiol 2006; 97: 13911398 26. Stone GW, Ohman M, Miller MF, et al: Contemporary utilization and outcomes of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 41:1940 1945 27. Webb JG, Sleeper LA, Buller CE, et al: Implications of timing of onset of cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: A report from the SHOCK trial registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36:1084 1090 28. The effects of tissue plasminogen activator, streptokinase, or both on coronary artery patency, ventricular function, and survival after acute myocardial infarction. The GUSTO Angiographic Investigators. N Engl J Med 1993; 329:16151522 29. Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL, et al: Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: A quantitative review of 23 randomized trials. Lancet 2003; 361:1320 30. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al: Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 1999; 341:625 634 31. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, White HD, et al: One-year survival following early revascularization for cardiogenic shock. JAMA 2001; 285:190 192 32. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al: Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 2006; 295: 25112515 33. Ohman EM, Chang PP: Improving quality of

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

life after cardiogenic shock: Do more revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46: 274 276 Jeger RV, Tseng CH, Hochman JS, et al: Inter-hospital transfer for early revascularization in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shockA report from SHOCK trial and registry. Am Heart J 2006; 152:686 692 Eagle KA, Guyton RA, Davidoff R, et al: ACC/ AHA 2004 guideline update for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery bypass Graft Surgery). Circulation 2004; 100:e340 Dzavik V, Sleeper LA, Cocke TP, et al: Early revascularization is associated with improved survival in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: A report from the SHOCK trial registry. Eur Heart J 2003; 24:828 837 Sanborn TA, Sleeper LA, Bates ER, et al: Impact of thrombolysis, intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation, and their combination in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: A report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36:11231129 Hasdai D, Califf RM, Thompson TD, et al: Predictors of cardiogenic shock after thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 35:136 143 Bjorklund E, Stenestrand U, Lindback J, et al: Pre-hospital thrombolysis delivered by paramedics is associated with reduced time delay and mortality in ambulance-transported real-life patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2006; 27: 1146 1152 Mehta SR, Eikelboom JW, Natarajan MK, et al: Impact of right ventricular involvement on mortality and morbidity in patients with inferior myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37:37 43 Bowers TR, ONeill WW, Grines C, et al: Effect of reperfusion on biventricular function

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

and survival after right ventricular infarction. N Engl J Med 1998; 338:933940 Thompson CR, Buller CE, Sleeper LA, et al: Cardiogenic shock due to acute severe mitral regurgitation complicating acute myocardial infarction: A report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36: 1104 1109 Menon V, Webb JG, Hillis LD, et al: Outcome and prole of ventricular septal rupture with cardiogenic shock after myocardial infarction: A report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36:1110 1116 Killen DA, Piehler JM, Borkon AM, et al: Early repair of postinfarction ventricular septal rupture. Ann Thorac Surg 1997; 63:138 142 Slater J, Brown RJ, Antonelli TA, et al: Cardiogenic shock due to cardiac free-wall rupture or tamponade after acute myocardial infarction: A report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36:1117 1122 Reardon MJ, Carr CL, Diamond A, et al: Ischemic left ventricular free wall rupture: Prediction, diagnosis, and treatment. Ann Thorac Surg 1997; 64:1509 1313 Kar B, Adkins LE, Civitello AB, et al: Clinical experience with the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device. Tex Heart Inst J 2006; 33:111115 Leshnower BG, Gleason TG, OHara ML, et al: Safety and efcacy of left ventricular assist device support in postmyocardial infarction cardiogenic shock. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 81:13651371 Tayara W, Starling RC, Yamani MH, et al: Improved survival after acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock with circulatory support and transplantation: Comparing aggressive intervention with conservative treatment. J Heart Lung Transplant 2006; 25:504 509 Barbash IM, Behar S, Battler A, et al: Management and outcome of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction in hospitals with and without on-site catheterization facilities. Heart 2001; 86:145149

S74

Crit Care Med 2008 Vol. 36, No. 1 (Suppl.)