Association between left ventricular ejection fraction, mortality and use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock

Abstract

Background Currently, use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock (CS) is predominantly guided by shock-specific markers, and not by markers of cardiac function. We hypothesise that left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) can identify patients with a higher likelihood to benefit from MCS and thus help to optimise their expected benefit. Methods Patients with non-ischaemic CS and available data on LVEF from 16 tertiary-care centres in five countries were analysed. Cox regression models were fitted to evaluate the association between LVEF and mortality, as well as the interaction between LVEF, MCS use and mortality. Results N = 807 patients were analysed: mean age 63 [interquartile range (IQR) 51.5–72.0] years, 601 (74.5%) male, lactate 4.9 (IQR 2.6–8.5) mmol/l, LVEF 20 (IQR 15–30) %. Lower LVEF was more frequent amongst patients with more severe CS, and MCS was more likely used in patients with lower LVEF. There was no association between LVEF and 30-day mortality risk in the overall study cohort. However, there was a significant interaction between MCS use and LVEF, indicating a lower 30-day mortality risk with MCS use in patients with LVEF ≤ 20% (hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.51–1.02 for LVEF ≤ 20% vs. hazard ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.85–2.01 for LVEF > 20%, interaction-p = 0.017). Conclusion This retrospective study may indicate a lower mortality risk with MCS use only in patients with severely reduced LVEF. This may propose the inclusion of LVEF as an adjunctive parameter for MCS decision-making in non-ischaemic CS, aiming to optimise the benefit–risk ratio. Graphical abstract Impact of left ventricular ejection fraction on mortality and use of mechanical circulatory support in non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock. Hazard ratio for 30-day mortality across the LVEF continuum, adjusted for age, sex, SCAI shock stage, worst value of lactate and pH within 6 h, prior resuscitation and mechanical ventilation during the index shock event. LVEF: Left ventricular ejection fraction; MCS: Mechanical circulatory support; HR: Hazard ratio; CI: Confidence interval.

Pre-operative intra-aortic balloon pump insertion in coronary artery bypass grafting patients reduces in-hospital morbidity

“…Moreover, IABP concomitantly improves cardiac output by raising cardiac stroke volume, especially in patients with impaired left ventricular function. This, in turn, increases renal blood ow and improves renal function [19][20][21][22]. However, there is still much controversy surrounding the effects of pre-operative IABP implantation on post-operative outcomes.…”

Is preoperative IABP insertion significantly reducing postoperative complication in augmented high-risk coronary artery bypass grafting patients?

“…Moreover, IABP concomitantly improves cardiac output by raising cardiac stroke volume, especially in patients with impaired left ventricular function. This, in turn, increases renal blood flow and improves renal function [21][22][23][24]. However, there is still much controversy surrounding the effects of pre-operative IABP implantation on post-operative outcomes.…”

Unloading in cardiogenic shock: the rationale and current evidence

“…Further findings suggest that primarily patients with a depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 20% or less benefit from MCS use regarding 30-day-mortality (hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.51–1.02 for LVEF ≤ 20% vs. hazard ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.85–2.01 for LVEF > 20%, interaction- P = 0.017) [30 ▪ ].…”