Higher Vasoactive Usage Despite Hemodynamic Goals is Associated with Higher Mortality in Acute Myocardial Infarction-related Cardiogenic Shock

Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a severe complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with high mortality. Few studies have examined the selection and subsequent choice of vasoactive agents in CS. This study investigates the impact of vasoactive drug use and in-hospital outcomes among AMI-CS.

Materials And Methods: A total of 309 patients who underwent pulmonary artery catheterization between 2006 and 2021 were categorized by the number of vasoactive drugs used (0-1, 2, or >2). Clinical and 24 h hemodynamic data were analyzed. Primary outcomes explored the correlation between vasoactive use and in-hospital mortality. Secondary analyses assessed hemodynamic changes and estimated mortality probabilities at different intervals using logistic regression.

Results: In total, 57 patients received 0-1, 76 received 2, and 176 received >2 vasoactive drugs. The median age was 61 years; most were men (82%), and 82.8% had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. End-organ function showed progressive deterioration with escalating vasoactive use. Survival analysis revealed an increased mortality in the >2 vasoactive group [HR = 4.62 (2.07-10.32)], achieving ≥5/6 hemodynamic goals that did not mitigate mortality [HR = 7.18 (1.59-32.39)]. Subgroup analyses within patients who reached different hemodynamic goals reiterated adverse outcomes associated with >2 vasoactives ( < 0.05). Further analysis showed that vasopressin was associated with the highest mortality in a time-dependent fashion [HR, 8.77 (6.04-12.75) → HR, 1.23 (0.8-1.87)], and levosimendan had similar behavior [HR, 2.67 (1.82-3.91) → HR, 0.66 (0.42-1.03)].

Conclusions: A significant association between the number of vasoactives and in-hospital mortality was found in AMI-CS, which requires future long-term studies to explore the role of vasoactive drug therapies and early temporary mechanical circulatory support.

References

Udesen N, Helgestad O, Banke A, Frederiksen P, Josiassen J, Jensen L . Impact of concomitant vasoactive treatment and mechanical left ventricular unloading in a porcine model of profound cardiogenic shock. Crit Care. 2020; 24(1):95. PMC: 7079533. DOI: 10.1186/s13054-020-2816-8. View

Moller J, Engstrom T, Jensen L, Eiskjaer H, Mangner N, Polzin A . Microaxial Flow Pump or Standard Care in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2024; 390(15):1382-1393. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2312572. View

Kataria R, Kanwar M . Congestion in AMI-Cardiogenic Shock: Rethinking Treatment Goals. J Card Fail. 2022; 29(5):757-759. DOI: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2022.12.003. View

Ortega-Hernandez J, Gonzalez-Pacheco H, Arguello-Bolanos J, Arenas-Diaz J, Perez-Lopez R, Garcia-Arias M . Invasive Phenoprofiling of Acute-Myocardial-Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock. J Clin Med. 2023; 12(18). PMC: 10532159. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12185818. View

Kaddoura R, Elmoheen A, Badawy E, Eltawagny M, Seif M, Bashir K . Vasoactive pharmacologic therapy in cardiogenic shock: a critical review. J Drug Assess. 2021; 10(1):68-85. PMC: 8293961. DOI: 10.1080/21556660.2021.1930548. View

Hajjar L, Vincent J, Galas F, Rhodes A, Landoni G, Osawa E . Vasopressin versus Norepinephrine in Patients with Vasoplegic Shock after Cardiac Surgery: The VANCS Randomized Controlled Trial. Anesthesiology. 2016; 126(1):85-93. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001434. View

Siebert V, Goldstein J, Khan R, Lopez J, Darki A, Lewis B . A goal-oriented hemodynamic approach to acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock-A single center experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2023; 102(4):569-576. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.30792. View

Vahdatpour C, Collins D, Goldberg S . Cardiogenic Shock. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019; 8(8):e011991. PMC: 6507212. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.119.011991. View

Naidu S, Baran D, Jentzer J, Hollenberg S, van Diepen S, Basir M . SCAI SHOCK Stage Classification Expert Consensus Update: A Review and Incorporation of Validation Studies: This statement was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), American Heart.... J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022; 79(9):933-946. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.01.018. View

10.

Vallabhajosyula S, Faugno A, Li B, John K, Kong Q, Sinha S . Prognostic Implications of Quantifying Vasoactive Medications in Cardiogenic Shock. J Card Fail. 2024; 30(11):1516-1521. DOI: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2024.06.010. View

11.

Thiele H, Zeymer U, Akin I, Behnes M, Rassaf T, Mahabadi A . Extracorporeal Life Support in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2023; 389(14):1286-1297. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2307227. View

12.

Mathew R, Di Santo P, Jung R, Marbach J, Hutson J, Simard T . Milrinone as Compared with Dobutamine in the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2021; 385(6):516-525. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2026845. View

13.

Jolly S, Newton G, Horlick E, Seidelin P, Ross H, Husain M . Effect of vasopressin on hemodynamics in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2005; 96(12):1617-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2005.07.076. View

14.

Mathew R, Fernando S, Hu K, Parlow S, Di Santo P, Brodie D . Optimal Perfusion Targets in Cardiogenic Shock. JACC Adv. 2024; 1(2):100034. PMC: 11198174. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacadv.2022.100034. View

15.

Thayer K, Zweck E, Ayouty M, Garan A, Hernandez-Montfort J, Mahr C . Invasive Hemodynamic Assessment and Classification of In-Hospital Mortality Risk Among Patients With Cardiogenic Shock. Circ Heart Fail. 2020; 13(9):e007099. PMC: 10243474. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.120.007099. View

16.

Ortega-Hernandez J, Gonzalez-Pacheco H, Gopar-Nieto R, Briseno-De-La-Cruz J, Sierra-Lara D, Araiza-Garaygordobil D . Dynamic Invasive Hemodynamic Congestion Profile Impacts Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock Outcomes: A Real-World Single-Center Study. J Card Fail. 2022; 29(5):745-756. DOI: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2022.10.425. View

17.

Udesen N, Moller J, Lindholm M, Eiskjaer H, Schafer A, Werner N . Rationale and design of DanGer shock: Danish-German cardiogenic shock trial. Am Heart J. 2019; 214:60-68. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2019.04.019. View

18.

Bloom J, Chan W, Kaye D, Stub D . State of Shock: Contemporary Vasopressor and Inotrope Use in Cardiogenic Shock. J Am Heart Assoc. 2023; 12(15):e029787. PMC: 10492962. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.123.029787. View

19.

Mebazaa A, Nieminen M, Packer M, Cohen-Solal A, Kleber F, Pocock S . Levosimendan vs dobutamine for patients with acute decompensated heart failure: the SURVIVE Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2007; 297(17):1883-91. DOI: 10.1001/jama.297.17.1883. View

20.

Kapur N, Kanwar M, Sinha S, Thayer K, Garan A, Hernandez-Montfort J . Criteria for Defining Stages of Cardiogenic Shock Severity. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022; 80(3):185-198. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.04.049. View