Cardiogenic shock is a high-acuity, potentially complex, and hemodynamically diverse state of end-organ hypoperfusion that is frequently associated with multisystem organ failure. Despite improving survival in recent years, patient morbidity and mortality remain high, and there are few evidence-based therapeutic interventions known to clearly improve patient outcomes. This scientific statement on cardiogenic shock summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, causes, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock; reviews contemporary best medical, surgical, mechanical circulatory support, and palliative care practices; advocates for the development of regionalized systems of care; and outlines future research priorities. Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a low-cardiac-output state resulting in life-threatening end-organ hypoperfusion and hypoxia.1,2 Acute myocardial infarction (MI) with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction remains the most frequent cause of CS. 1,3 Advances in reperfusion therapy have been associated with improvements in survival, but significant regional disparities in evidence-based care have been reported, and in-hospital mortality remains high (27%-51%).1,4-9 Management recommendations are distributed between disease-specific statements and guidelines, and a dedicated and comprehensive clinical resource in this area is lacking. Thus, consolidating the evidence to define contemporary best medical and surgical CS practices for both MI-associated CS and other types of CS may be an important step in knowledge translation to help attenuate disparities in evidence-based care.Regional systems of care coupled with treatment algorithms have improved survival in high-acuity time-sensitive conditions such as MI, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), and trauma.10-12 Applying a similar framework to CS management may lead to similar improvements in survival, and CS systems of care are emerging within existing regional cardiovascular emergency care networks; however, guidance from a national expert group on structure and systems of care has not been available. 13,14 Accordingly, the purposes of this American Heart Association (AHA) scientific statement on CS are to summarize our contemporary understanding of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and in-hospital best care practices into a single clinical resource document; to suggest a stepwise management algorithm that integrates medical, surgical, and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) therapies; and to propose a Mission: Lifelinesupported pathway for the development of integrated regionalized CS systems of care. DEFINITION OF CSAcute cardiac hemodynamic instability may result from disorders that impair function of the myocardium, valves, conduction system, or pericardium, either in isolation HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVESBefore the routine use of early revascularization, MIassociated CS had an in-hospital mortality exceeding 80%. A registry trial of 250 patients with acute MI described the association between bedside physical examination (Killip classification) for the as...

RHF is a complex syndrome including diverse causes, pathways, and pathological processes. In this scientific statement, we review the causes and epidemiology of RV dysfunction and the pathophysiology of acute and chronic RHF and provide guidance for the management of the associated conditions leading to and caused by RHF.

Background The outcome of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction has not appreciably changed in the last 30 years despite the development of various percutaneous mechanical circulatory support options. It is clear that there are varying degrees of cardiogenic shock but there is no robust classification scheme to categorize this disease state. Methods A multidisciplinary group of experts convened by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions was assembled to derive a proposed classification schema for cardiogenic shock. Representatives from cardiology (interventional, advanced heart failure, noninvasive), emergency medicine, critical care, and cardiac nursing all collaborated to develop the proposed schema. Results A system describing stages of cardiogenic shock from A to E was developed. Stage A is “at risk” for cardiogenic shock, stage B is “beginning” shock, stage C is “classic” cardiogenic shock, stage D is “deteriorating”, and E is “extremis”. The difference between stages B and C is the presence of hypoperfusion which is present in stages C and higher. Stage D implies that the initial set of interventions chosen have not restored stability and adequate perfusion despite at least 30 minutes of observation and stage E is the patient in extremis, highly unstable, often with cardiovascular collapse. Conclusion This proposed classification system is simple, clinically applicable across the care spectrum from pre‐hospital providers to intensive care staff but will require future validation studies to assess its utility and potential prognostic implications.

Although historically the intra-aortic balloon pump has been the only mechanical circulatory support device available to clinicians, a number of new devices have become commercially available and have entered clinical practice. These include axial flow pumps, such as Impella(®); left atrial to femoral artery bypass pumps, specifically the TandemHeart; and new devices for institution of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. These devices differ significantly in their hemodynamic effects, insertion, monitoring, and clinical applicability. This document reviews the physiologic impact on the circulation of these devices and their use in specific clinical situations. These situations include patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention, those presenting with cardiogenic shock, and acute decompensated heart failure. Specialized uses for right-sided support and in pediatric populations are discussed and the clinical utility of mechanical circulatory support devices is reviewed, as are the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association clinical practice guidelines.

Background The National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative is a single‐arm, prospective, multicenter study to assess outcomes associated with early mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods Between July 2016 and February 2019, 35 sites participated and enrolled into the study. All centers agreed to treat patients with AMICS using a standard protocol emphasizing invasive hemodynamic monitoring and rapid initiation of MCS. Inclusion and exclusion criteria mimicked those of the “SHOCK” trial with an additional exclusion criteria of intra‐aortic balloon pump counter‐pulsation prior to MCS. Results A total of 171 consecutive patients were enrolled. Patients had an average age of 63 years, 77% were male, and 68% were admitted with AMICS. About 83% of patients were on vasopressors or inotropes, 20% had a witnessed out of hospital cardiac arrest, 29% had in‐hospital cardiac arrest, and 10% were under active cardiopulmonary resuscitation during MCS implantation. In accordance with the protocol, 74% of patients had MCS implanted prior to PCI. Right heart catheterization was performed in 92%. About 78% of patients presented with ST‐elevation myocardial infarction with average door to support times of 85 ± 63 min and door to balloon times of 87 ± 58 min. Survival to discharge was 72%. Creatinine ≥2, lactate >4, cardiac power output (CPO) <0.6 W, and age ≥ 70 years were predictors of mortality. Lactate and CPO measurements at 12–24 hr reliably predicted overall mortality postindex procedure. Conclusion In contemporary practice, use of a shock protocol emphasizing best practices is associated with improved outcomes.