Rationale: A reduced rate of myocardial infarction has been reported in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with FXa (factor Xa) inhibitors including rivaroxaban compared with vitamin K antagonists. At the same time, low-dose rivaroxaban has been shown to reduce mortality and atherothrombotic events in patients with coronary artery disease. Yet, the mechanisms underlying this reduction remain unknown. Objective: In this study, we hypothesized that rivaroxaban’s antithrombotic potential is linked to a hitherto unknown rivaroxaban effect that impacts on platelet reactivity and arterial thrombosis. Methods and Results: In this study, we identified FXa as potent, direct agonist of the PAR-1 (protease-activated receptor 1), leading to platelet activation and thrombus formation, which can be inhibited by rivaroxaban. We found that rivaroxaban reduced arterial thrombus stability in a mouse model of arterial thrombosis using intravital microscopy. For in vitro studies, atrial fibrillation patients on permanent rivaroxaban treatment for stroke prevention, respective controls, and patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation before and after first intake of rivaroxaban (time series analysis) were recruited. Platelet aggregation responses, as well as thrombus formation under arterial flow conditions on collagen and atherosclerotic plaque material, were attenuated by rivaroxaban. We show that rivaroxaban’s antiplatelet effect is plasma dependent but independent of thrombin and rivaroxaban’s anticoagulatory capacity. Conclusions: Here, we identified FXa as potent platelet agonist that acts through PAR-1. Therefore, rivaroxaban exerts an antiplatelet effect that together with its well-known potent anticoagulatory capacity might lead to reduced frequency of atherothrombotic events and improved outcome in patients.

Cardiogenic shock is still a major driver of mortality on intensive care units and complicates ∼10% of acute coronary syndromes with contemporary mortality rates up to 50%. In the meantime, percutaneous circulatory support devices, in particular venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), have emerged as an established salvage intervention for patients in cardiogenic shock. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation provides temporary circulatory support until other treatments are effective and enables recovery or serves as a bridge to ventricular assist devices, heart transplantation, or decision-making. In this critical care perspective, we provide a concise overview of VA-ECMO utilization in cardiogenic shock, considering rationale, critical care management, as well as weaning aspects. We supplement previous literature by focusing on therapeutic issues related to the vicious circle of retrograde aortic VA-ECMO flow, increased left ventricular (LV) afterload, insufficient LV unloading, and severe pulmonary congestion limiting prognosis in a relevant proportion of patients receiving VA-ECMO treatment. We will outline different modifications in percutaneous mechanical circulatory support to meet this challenge. Besides a strategy of running ECMO at lowest possible flow rates, novel therapeutic options including the combination of VA-ECMO with percutaneous microaxial pumps or implementation of a venoarteriovenous-ECMO configuration based on an additional venous cannula supplying towards pulmonary circulation are most promising among LV unloading and venting strategies. The latter may even combine the advantages of venovenous and venoarterial ECMO therapy, providing potent respiratory and circulatory support at the same time. However, whether VA-ECMO can reduce mortality has to be evaluated in the urgently needed, ongoing prospective randomized studies EURO-SHOCK (NCT03813134), ANCHOR (NCT04184635), and ECLS-SHOCK (NCT03637205). These studies will provide the opportunity to investigate indication, mode, and effect of LV unloading in dedicated sub-analyses. In future, the Heart Teams should aim at conducting a dedicated randomized trial comparing VA-ECMO support with vs. without LV unloading strategies in patients with cardiogenic shock.

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) provides temporary cardiac and respiratory support and has emerged as an established salvage intervention for patients with hemodynamic compromise or shock. It is thereby used as a bridge to recovery, bridge to permanent ventricular assist devices, bridge to transplantation, or bridge to decision. However, weaning from VA-ECMO differs between centers, and information about standardized weaning protocols are rare. Given the high mortality of patients undergoing VA-ECMO treatment, it is all the more important to answer the many questions still remaining unresolved in this field Standardized algorithms are recommended to optimize the weaning process and determine whether the VA-ECMO can be safely removed. Successful weaning as a multifactorial process requires sufficient recovery of myocardial and end-organ function. The patient should be considered hemodynamically stable, although left ventricular function often remains impaired during and after weaning. Echocardiographic and invasive hemodynamic monitoring seem to be indispensable when evaluating biventricular recovery and in determining whether the VA-ECMO can be weaned successfully or not, whereas cardiac biomarkers may not be useful in stratifying those who will recover. This review summarizes the strategies of weaning of VA-ECMO and discusses predictors of successful and poor weaning outcome.

The Impella device (Impella, Abiomed, Danvers, MA) is a percutaneous transvalvular microaxial flow pump that is currently used for (1) cardiogenic shock, (2) left ventricular unloading (combination of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and Impella concept), (3) high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions, (4) ablation of ventricular tachycardia, and (5) treatment of right ventricular failure. Impella-assisted forward blood flow increased mean arterial pressure and cardiac output, peripheral tissue perfusion, and coronary blood flow in observational studies and some randomized trials. However, because of the need for large-bore femoral access (14 F for the commonly used Impella CP device) and anticoagulation, the incidences of bleeding and ischemic complications are as much as 44% and 18%, respectively. Hemolysis is reported in as many as 32% of patients and stroke in as many as 13%. Despite the rapidly growing use of the Impella device, there are still insufficient data on its effect on outcome and complications on the basis of large, adequately powered randomized controlled trials. The only 2 small and also underpowered randomized controlled trials in cardiogenic shock comparing Impella versus intra-aortic balloon pump did not show improved mortality. Several larger randomized controlled trials are currently recruiting patients or are in preparation in cardiogenic shock (DanGer Shock [Danish-German Cardiogenic Shock Trial; NCT01633502]), left ventricular unloading (DTU-STEMI [Door-To-Unload in ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction; NCT03947619], UNLOAD ECMO [Left Ventricular Unloading to Improve Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock Patients on VA-ECMO], and REVERSE [A Prospective Randomised Trial of Early LV Venting Using Impella CP for Recovery in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Managed With VA ECMO; NCT03431467]) and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PROTECT IV [Impella-Supported PCI in High-Risk Patients With Complex Coronary Artery Disease and Reduced Left Ventricular Function; NCT04763200]).