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.

The availability of direct-acting antiviral agents for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has resulted in a profound shift in the approach to the management of this infection. These changes have affected the practice of solid organ transplantation by altering the framework by which patients with end-stage organ disease are managed and receive organ transplants. The high level of safety and efficacy of these medications in patients with chronic HCV infection provides the opportunity to explore their use in the setting of transplanting organs from HCV-viremic patients into non-HCV-viremic recipients. Because these organs are frequently discarded and typically come from younger donors, this approach has the potential to save lives on the solid organ transplant waitlist. Therefore, an urgent need exists for prospective research protocols that study the risk versus benefit of using organs for hepatitis C-infected donors. In response to this rapidly changing practice and the need for scientific study and consensus, the American Society of Transplantation convened a meeting of experts to review current data and develop the framework for the study of using HCV viremic organs in solid organ transplantation.

on behalf of the Multicenter InSync ICD II Study GroupBackground-The effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with mildly symptomatic heart failure have not been fully elucidated. Methods and Results-The Multicenter InSync ICD Randomized Clinical Evaluation II (MIRACLE ICD II) was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled clinical trial of CRT in NYHA class II heart failure patients on optimal medical therapy with a left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction Յ35%, a QRS Ն130 ms, and a class I indication for an ICD. One hundred eighty-six patients were randomized: 101 to the control group (ICD activated, CRT off) and 85 to the CRT group (ICD activated, CRT on). End points included peak V O 2 , V E/V CO 2 , NYHA class, quality of life, 6-minute walk distance, LV volumes and ejection fraction, and composite clinical response. Compared with the control group at 6 months, no significant improvement was noted in peak V O 2 , yet there were significant improvements in ventricular remodeling indexes, specifically LV diastolic and systolic volumes (Pϭ0.04 and Pϭ0.01, respectively), and LV ejection fraction (Pϭ0.02). CRT patients showed statistically significant improvement in V E/V CO 2 (Pϭ0.01), NYHA class (Pϭ0.05), and clinical composite response (Pϭ0.01). No significant differences were noted in 6-minute walk distance or quality of life scores. Conclusions-In patients with mild heart failure symptoms on optimal medical therapy with a wide QRS complex and an ICD indication, CRT did not alter exercise capacity but did result in significant improvement in cardiac structure and function and composite clinical response over 6 months.