Advertisement

How does protocolization improve outcomes in cardiogenic shock due to end-stage heart failure?

      Highlights

      • Protocolized team-based care lowered SOFA scores at the time of MCS and Exit therapy (transplant/LVAD) in cardiogenic shock
      • Lower SOFA score at the time of ‘Exit’ therapy was associated with improved 6-month survival in patients with cardiogenic shock due to end-stage heart failure.
      • SOFA score 9 or more at the time of Exit therapy was associated with poor 6-month survival
      • SOFA score may be used to guide the timing of transplantation/LVAD implant in patients with end-stage HF on temporary MCS

      Abstract

      Background

      Protocolized team-based care has been shown to improve outcomes in cardiogenic shock (CS) in patients with end-stage heart failure (ESHF). This study tested the hypothesis that protocolized care improves survival by reducing multi-organ dysfunction prior to orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) or durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

      Methods

      We developed a protocolized Recognize/rescue-Optimization-Stabilization-Exit/de-Escalation (ROSE) framework for CS due to ESHF. Six-month survival pre-ROSE (2014–2018) and post-ROSE (2018–2021) were compared. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was calculated as a measure of multi-organ dysfunction pre-MCS and pre-“Exit” therapy (OHT, LVAD or recovery).

      Results

      101 consecutive patients with CS due to ESHF who were deteriorating on inotropes (INTERMACS 1 or 2) were included (63 in Pre-ROSE and 38 in Post-ROSE). The proportions of patients who died on support (26 (41%) vs 11 (29%), p = 0.213) or bridged to “Exit” therapy were comparable between Pre- and Post-ROSE: OHT (28 (44%) vs 21 (55%), p = 0.292); durable LVAD (8 (13%) vs 5 (13%), p = 0.947); or recovery (1 (2%) vs 1 (3%), p = 0.715). SOFA score prior to “Exit” therapy was higher Pre-ROSE compared to Post-ROSE (4 (2–7) vs 2 (1–5), p = 0.012). Six-month survival from initial MCS (71% vs 41%, p = 0.004) and in patients who underwent “Exit” therapy (100% vs 71%, p = 0.001) were higher Post-ROSE vs Pre-ROSE, respectively. Higher pre-“Exit” SOFA score was associated with 6-month survival. None of the patients with Pre-“Exit” SOFA score ≥ 9 survived at 6 months.

      Conclusion

      Protocolization of CS care in ESHF improved six-month survival by improving multi-organ dysfunction (SOFA score) prior to OHT and LVAD implant.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to International Journal of Cardiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Berg D.D.
        • Barnett C.F.
        • Kenigsberg B.B.
        • Papolos A.
        • Alviar C.L.
        • Baird-Zars V.M.
        • et al.
        Clinical practice patterns in temporary mechanical circulatory support for shock in the critical care cardiology trials network (CCCTN) registry.
        Circ. Heart Fail. 2019; 12e006635
        • Moghaddam N.
        • van Diepen S.
        • So D.
        • Lawler P.R.
        • Fordyce C.B.
        Cardiogenic shock teams and centres: a contemporary review of multidisciplinary care for cardiogenic shock.
        ESC Heart Fail. 2021; 8: 988-998
        • Lambden S.
        • Laterre P.F.
        • Levy M.M.
        • Francois B.
        The SOFA score-development, utility and challenges of accurate assessment in clinical trials.
        Crit. Care. 2019; 23: 374
        • Al Musa T.
        • Chue C.D.
        • Lim H.S.
        Mechanical circulatory support for decompensated heart failure.
        Curr. Heart Fail. Rep. 2017; 14: 365-375
        • Tehrani B.N.
        • Truesdell A.G.
        • Sherwood M.W.
        • Desai S.
        • Tran H.A.
        • Epps K.C.
        • et al.
        Standardized team-based care for cardiogenic shock.
        J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2019; 73: 1659-1669
        • Hernandez-Montfort J.
        • Sinha S.S.
        • Thayer K.L.
        • Whitehead E.H.
        • Pahuja M.
        • Garan A.R.
        • et al.
        Clinical outcomes associated with acute mechanical circulatory support ytilization in heart failure related cardiogenic shock.
        Circ. Heart Fail. 2021; 15e007924
        • Tongers J.
        • Sieweke J.T.
        • Kuhn C.
        • Napp L.C.
        • Flierl Rontgen P.
        • et al.
        Early escalation of mechanical circulatory support stabilzes and potentially rescues patients in refractory cardiogenic shock.
        Circ. Heart Fail. 2020; 13e005853
        • Patila T.
        • Kukkonen S.
        • Vento A.
        • Pettila V.
        • Suojaranta-Ylien R.
        Relation of the sequential organ failure assessment score to morbidity and mortality after cardiac surgery.
        Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2006; 82: 2072-2078
        • Yang J.A.
        • Kato T.S.
        • Shulman B.P.
        • Takayama H.
        • Farr M.
        • Jorde U.P.
        • et al.
        Liver dysfunction as a predictor of outcomes in patients with advanced heart failure requiring ventricular assist device support: use of the model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) and MELD excluding INR (MELD-XI) scoring system.
        J. Heart Lung Transplant. 2012; 31: 601-610