https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3984-7781
Figures
Abstract
Background
Most studies in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) include patients presenting with and without out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The aim was to compare OHCA and non-OHCA AMICS patients in terms of hemodynamics, management in the intensive care unit (ICU) and outcome.
Methods
From a cohort corresponding to two thirds of the Danish population, all patients with AMICS admitted from 2010–2017 were individually identified through patient records.
Results
A total of 1716 AMICS patients were identified of which 723 (42%) presented with OHCA. A total of 1532 patients survived to ICU admission. At the time of ICU arrival, there were no differences between OHCA and non-OHCA AMICS patients in variables commonly used in the AMICS definition (mean arterial pressure (MAP) (72mmHg vs 70mmHg, p = 0.12), lactate (4.3mmol/L vs 4.0mmol/L, p = 0.09) and cardiac output (CO) (4.6L/min vs 4.4L/min, p = 0.30)) were observed. However, during the initial days of ICU treatment OHCA patients had a higher MAP despite a lower need for vasoactive drugs, higher CO, SVO2 and lactate clearance compared to non-OHCA patients (p<0.05 for all). In multivariable analysis outcome was similar but cause of death differed significantly with hypoxic brain injury being leading cause in OHCA and cardiac failure in non-OHCA AMICS patients.
Conclusion
OHCA and non-OHCA AMICS patients initially have comparable metabolic and hemodynamic profiles, but marked differences develop between the groups during the first days of ICU treatment. Thus, pooling of OHCA and non-OHCA patients as one clinical entity in studies should be done with caution.
Citation: Josiassen J, Lerche Helgestad OK, Møller JE, Kjaergaard J, Hoejgaard HF, Schmidt H, et al. (2020) Hemodynamic and metabolic recovery in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock is more rapid among patients presenting with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. PLoS ONE 15(12): e0244294. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244294
Editor: Corstiaan den Uil, Erasmus Medical Center, NETHERLANDS
Received: September 21, 2020; Accepted: December 8, 2020; Published: December 23, 2020
Copyright: © 2020 Josiassen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Data cannot be shared publicly due to Danish data legislation. Permission to data can be granted from the Danish Data Protection Agency (contact via jakob.josiassen@regionh.dk or dt@datatilsynet.dk) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.
Funding: The study was funded by The Danish Heart Foundation, The Jørgen Møller foundation and a research grant from Abiomed. The funding parts were not involved in any aspects of the creation or publishing of current study.
Competing interests: Dr. JE. Møller has received a research grant from Abiomed. Dr. J Kjaergaard has received research funding from the NovoNordisk Foundation (NNF17OC0028706) outside of the submitted work Dr. OKL Helgestad has received travel compensation from Abiomed These competing interests does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. The remaining authors have no disclosures.
Introduction
Cardiogenic shock is the leading cause of mortality following acute myocardial infarction (MI), and the 30-day mortality rate remains at approximately 50% [1–3]. Most studies assessing mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) include patients presenting with and without out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) [4–6]. OHCA is an independent predictor of mortality after MI [7]. However, the impact of OHCA on short- as well as long-term mortality among patients with AMICS is unclear [8, 9]. The presence of OHCA is increasingly observed among patients with AMICS with recent observational studies reporting a presence > 50% [1, 10], and similar trends are observed in contemporary large randomized controlled trials (RCT) as well [4, 5]. The pathophysiology underlying AMICS with OHCA versus non-OHCA is fundamentally different. AMICS with OHCA is driven by sudden global ischemia followed by post cardiac arrest syndrome (PCAS), while AMICS with non-OHCA is due to progressing myocardial dysfunction leading to low cardiac output (CO) and organ hypoperfusion [11]. Also, studies have shown differences in demographic characteristics of patients with AMICS presenting with and without OHCA [8]. Further, some fundamental aspects of treatment, e. g. targeted temperature management (TTM) differ between the two subgroups. Importantly, severe hypoxic brain injury leading to the withdrawal of life support occurs more frequently among patients with OHCA [12]. To further explore the differences in management and hemodynamic changes during the initial treatment phase in the intensive care unit (ICU), we performed this study in a large contemporary cohort of patients with AMICS presenting with or without OHCA.
Methods
Study population
This study is based on the Danish RETROSHOCK cohort [1]. All patients with AMICS were identified through national regulatory registries and underwent individual validation before inclusion in the database. The cohort consists of all patients with AMICS admitted to two tertiary Danish heart centers during the period of 2010–2017, thus representing two-thirds of the Danish population receiving treatment for AMICS.
Based on a screening algorithm, patients diagnosed with either 1) Cardiogenic shock (ICD-10, R57.0), 2) MI as primary or secondary diagnosis (ICD-10, I21.x) (who either died in-hospital and/or was admitted to the ICU and/or treated with vasoactive drugs and/or treated with mechanical circulatory assist device), 3) OHCA as primary or secondary diagnosis (ICD-10, I21.x) (who either died in-hospital and/or was admitted to the ICU and/or treated with vasoactive drugs and/or treated with mechanical assist device), were considered suspicious of AMICS and extracted from the Danish National Patient Registry [1]. A total of 3,553 patients were identified and their medical charts were reviewed by J.J. and O.K.L.H. for individual validation of AMICS and subsequently cohort inclusion.
The MI diagnosis was made at the discretion of the treating physician and based on the fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction [13].
Presence of AMICS was defined as the fulfillment of all of the following criteria simultaneously; 1) hypotension (systolic blood pressure ≤90mmHg and/or the need of vasopressors and/or mechanical circulatory support), 2) sign(s) of end-organ hypoperfusion (cold/clammy skin, and/or oliguria, and/or altered mental status and/or arterial lactate ≥ 2.5mmol/L) and 3) documented reduction in left and/or right ventricular function due to MI.
Presence of OHCA was defined as cardiac arrest that occurs prior to emergency medical service arrival. Only patients who at some point achieved return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) were included in the cohort.
Data collection
Real-time data from the ICU, including basic and advanced hemodynamics, blood gas analyses, medical administrations and ventilator settings, were extracted from the ICU databases used at the at Odense University hospital and Rigshospitalet (Picis clinical solutions and Intellispace Critical Care & Anesthesia respectively). The ICU variables were compared between patients presenting with or without OHCA and are presented as a mean of all patients at defined time-points during the first 72 hours following ICU admission. A calculated mean value is reported in cases where hemodynamic variables were recorded multiple times within an hour. If lactate levels were measured more than once per hour, the highest value measured within that hour was used.
A vasoactive inotropic score (VIS) was calculated as dopamine dose (μg/kg/min) + dobutamine dose (μg/kg/min) + 100 x epinephrine dose (μg/kg/min) + 10 x milrinone dose (μg/kg/min) + 10.000 x vasopressin dose (U/kg/min) + 100 x norepinephrine dose (μg/kg/min) [14].
Statistics
The cohort of patients with AMICS was stratified into two groups: those presenting with versus without OHCA. Data with Gaussian distribution are presented as mean and standard deviation and compared using an ANOVA test. Data with non-Gaussian distribution are presented as median with 1st and 3rd interquartile range and compared using a Kruskal Wallis test. Dichotomous variables are presented as numbers and percentages and compared using a chi-square test. A multivariable analysis was performed by using a cox proportional hazards model and results are presented as hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI).
A Kaplan-Meier approach was used to estimate the 30-day mortality rates, and a log-rank test was used to compare differences between groups.
All ICU variables were compared using repeated measurement mixed models for unstructured covariance structure and the patients stratified into 2 groups: OHCA and non-OHCA. The two groups were compared, including the interaction over time during the first days of ICU admission. All statistical analyses were done using SAS® Enterprise software (version 7.1 SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA). All figures are made with GraphPad Prism 7.0.
Results
From 2010–2017, a total of 1,716 patients with AMICS were identified and included in the cohort. Of these, 723 (42%) presented with OHCA (median time to ROSC, 20 mins (Q1-Q3: 14–30 mins)). OHCA patients were younger (63 years vs 70 years), more frequently male (85% vs 67%), and more often sedated upon ICU admission (95% vs 35%), Tables 1 and 2. OHCA patients initially had higher lactate levels (6.2 mmol/L vs 5.0 mmol/L) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (30% vs 25%) compared to non-OHCA patients (p<0.0001 for all). All AMICS patients underwent coronary angiography immediately upon arrival and revascularisation accordingly depending on futility assessment by the heart team in the cath lab. From the complete cohort of 1,716 patients, 89% of OHCA patients and 85% of non-OHCA patients were acutely revascularized (p = 0.02). Among patients surviving to the ICU, no difference were seen among subgroups (p = 0.84).
A total of 1,532 patients were admitted to the ICU. Of the remaining patients 181 patients died before reaching the ICU and 3 patients were admitted to the cardiac care unit. Patients who did not survive to ICU were older (76 vs 66 years) more often non-OHCA patients (89% vs 11%) and they presented with a lower LVEF (20% vs 30%) as well as a higher lactate levels (6.7 mmol/L vs 5.1 mmol/L) (p<0.0001 for all) compared to the patients admitted to ICU. At the time of ICU arrival, no differences were observed between the groups in the hemodynamic and metabolic variables used to define cardiogenic shock, including mean arterial pressure (MAP) (72 mmHg vs 70 mmHg, p = 0.12), cardiac output (CO) (4.6 L/min vs 4.4 L/min, p = 0.30) and arterial lactate (4.3 mmol/L vs 4.0 mmol/L, p = 0.09), Fig 1.
OHCA: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Lactate levels are depicted from hospital admission and during the first 24 hours of intensive care unit admission.
Patients in the OHCA group cleared lactate faster (0.17 mmol/hour vs 0.10 mmol/hour p<0.0001), to a lower level during the first 24 hours of treatment in the ICU compared to non-OHCA group, Fig 1. Additionally, the OHCA group were more often mechanically ventilated and they received a higher dosage of sedation with propofol, especially during the first 24 hours in the ICU when receiving the TTM treatment, Table 3. Consequently, the OHCA group had a lower heart rate (81 bpm vs 90 bpm) at the initiation of treatment in the ICU, Fig 1. During the first 24 hours a comparable therapeutic MAP was targeted among both subgroups, but when looking at the first 72 hours of ICU admission overall OHCA patients had a higher MAP even though they had a lower VIS score, Table 3, Fig 1, S1 Fig. However, there was no difference in the VIS score during the first 24 hours (p = 0.98, sub analysis Fig 1).
A pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) was inserted in 438 patients. Compared to those not receiving a PAC, patients receiving a PAC were younger (64 years vs 67 years, p = 0.002) and more often men (80% vs 75%, p = 0.04). A PAC was equally used among the OHCA and non-OHCA groups (24% vs 27%, p = 0.13). CO, assessed using the PAC, was similar among the two groups at the initiation of treatment. However, during the first 72 hours the OHCA group increased their CO more, Fig 1. Further, patients in the OHCA group had a higher SvO2 at admission and during the first 72 hours compared to non-OHCA group which had a subnormal SvO2 throughout the first 72 hours, Fig 1.
In terms of overall outcome (n = 1,716), OHCA patients had a lower 30-day mortality compared to patients without OHCA, Fig 2. However, when adjusting for age, this difference disappeared (non-OHCA vs OHCA, HR 1.08 95% CI 0.93–1.265, p = 0.31).
OHCA: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
The cause of in-hospital death differed markedly between the two groups. Hypoxic brain injury leading to withdrawal of life support was the main cause of in-hospital death in the OHCA group (56%) and was only observed in 4% of patients in the non-OHCA group, Fig 3. In contrast, cardiac failure was the main cause of in-hospital death in the non-OHCA group (60%) compared to 27% in the OHCA group, Fig 3.
OHCA: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
Discussion
Despite large differences in patient characteristics and the fact that OHCA patients more frequently were comatose upon admission, OHCA and non-OHCA AMICS patients were clinically inseparable in terms of hemodynamic and metabolic parameters commonly used to define cardiogenic shock at ICU admission. However, during the following days of ICU admission, patients with OHCA improved markedly metabolically and hemodynamically compared to non-OHCA patients and major differences in cause of in-hospital death were seen between the two groups.
Intensive care unit management
The first 24 hours of treatment in the ICU following immediate revascularization differs among patients with AMICS presenting with versus without OHCA, mainly due to the comatose proportion of OHCA patients receiving TTM treatment [15, 16]. In accordance with the ILCOR guideline recommendations, patients with OHCA received higher doses of sedatives during TTM to maintain the recommended Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score of -4 [17]. Since sedatives, especially propofol, have a lowering effect on the blood pressure and heart rate, patients with OHCA treated with sedatives may need vasopressors to maintain an adequate perfusion pressure of 65 mmHg or above. Thus, the need for vasoactive drugs during the initial 24 hours in the ICU in the OHCA group is likely affected by the use of sedatives. Also, the relatively lower HR among patients with OHCA during TTM can be explained by several factors related to the treatment options, including more profound sedation and lower core temperature [18, 19]. It may also be a result of better circulation and hereby less pronounced cardiogenic shock, which is supported by the fact that OHCA patients did not need higher doses of vasoactive and/or inotropic drugs despite markedly higher doses of sedatives. This observation is further supported by a faster lactate clearance.
The lactate level in the early phase of shock is associated with severity of organ hypoperfusion and is a strong predictor of mortality in AMICS [20, 21], and mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO2) provide information of oxygen extraction and flow (cardiac output) [22, 23]. OHCA was in present study associated with more rapid normalization of lactate and SvO2. Thus, possibly a signal of improved tissue perfusion with decreased lactate production in OHCA after ROSC, whereas lactate levels remained increased in the non-OHCA group due to more prolonged depression of LV function (low SvO2). This may partly explain why patients with OHCA do not have a higher 30-day mortality despite higher lactate levels upon hospital arrival. Better lactate clearance in OHCA patients during the first 24 hours of ICU admission may also reflect improved hemodynamics, which has been associated with improved outcome [24]. A slower lactate clearance following TTM has been observed both in patients with AMICS without OHCA [25, 26]. Since only AMICS patients with OHCA received TTM in the present study, the difference in lactate clearance may be even more pronounced than reported between patients with OHCA versus non-OHCA.
Myocardial stunning is a common part of the post cardiac arrest syndrome during the first hours after ROSC and can easily be interpreted as “classical” AMICS [27–30].
However, a large proportion of these patients quickly recover their cardiac function and hemodynamics after ROSC, which may also be part of the physiological explanation of the faster increase of CO and recovery of SvO2 in the OHCA group.
Mortality and cause of in-hospital death
The observed unadjusted 30-day mortality of 49% among patients with OHCA and 57% among the non-OHCA patients in this study is comparable to available RCTs and observational studies of patients with AMICS [4, 6, 8]. Available AMICS studies report diverging results on 30-day mortality between OHCA and non-OHCA patients, which may be explained by differences in cardiogenic shock definitions and hereby patient selection [8, 31]. In present AMICS cohort, a younger age was the driver of the lower mortality in the OHCA group. When comparing mortality among OHCA and non-OHCA AMICS patients it is however important to emphasize that OHCA patients reaching the hospital alive are somewhat already highly selected patients, as patients who died prior to hospital admission, cannot be traced in hospital registries. Previous studies on OHCA have shown that, dependent on the underlying rhythm, less than 25% survive to hospital [32, 33]. What can be seen from the present study is that despite impaired hemodynamics and severe metabolic shock upon arrival, patients with OHCA have an equal mortality, but with faster recovery of hemodynamics. In contrast, their outcome is more dependent on neurological recovery, not necessarily relating to hemodynamic stabilization, as marked differences were seen in terms of cause of death. Hypoxic brain injury leading to withdrawal of life support was the leading cause of in-hospital death among OHCA patients, whereas cardiac failure was the main cause of in-hospital death among non-OHCA patients. As far as we are concerned, the cause of in-hospital death among AMICS patients with or without OHCA has not been directly compared previously. However, in the supplementary of the latest published large RCT, the CULPRIT SHOCK trial, cardiac failure and hypoxic brain injury were also the two leading causes of death among patients who died during the first 30 days [4]. Including the results of current study, evidence indicating that OHCA and non-OHCA AMICS patients represent clinical different entities is increasing [34]. It would have large implications on the patient enrollment time, if the subgroups were separated. Consequently, more observational data addressing this are warranted. However, the findings of current study suggest, that future interventions assessed in cardiogenic shock should at least be considered stratified according to whether or not the patient is admitted with OHCA, as one intervention may not have the same effect among clinical entities.
Limitations
Not all patients survived to ICU admission. The non-survivors were markedly older, and the majority belonged to the non-OHCA group. This may potentially have skewed the observed ICU measurements. However, patients dying prior to ICU admission had higher lactate concentrations and more depressed LVEF, thus representing patients in more profound cardiogenic shock. As the clear majority of these patients were non-OHCA patients, the conclusions of current study are not expected to suffer from over-interpretation.
Hemodynamic instability is one of the main indications for PAC insertion, why this subgroup of patients is suspected of having a worse outcome and somewhat selected.
Finally, this study is observational, with all the limitations applied, including risk of residual confounding and selection bias.
Conclusion
AMICS patients presenting with and without OHCA are comparable in terms of metabolic and hemodynamic variables used in the classical cardiogenic shock definition at ICU admission. However, during the initial 72 hours extensive metabolic and hemodynamic differences were observed between OHCA and non-OHCA AMICS patients suggesting important underlying differences in the pathophysiology. Future intervention studies in AMICS to optimize circulation should consider stratifying by OHCA, or completely excluding this group of patients, since outcome following OHCA is less likely to rely on hemodynamic stabilization.
Supporting information
S1 Fig. Central temperature and vasoactive drug doses during the first 72 hours after intensive care unit admission.
The 1,532 patients who were admitted to the ICU are stratified into subgroups presenting with and without OHCA. During the study period, the protocolized therapeutic hypothermia temperature changed from 33 to 36 degrees Celsius in the OHCA group. Therefore, the average central temperature in the OHCA group is between 33 to 36 degrees during the first 24 hours in the ICU. OHCA: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244294.s001
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Helgestad OKL, Josiassen J, Hassager C, Jensen LO, Holmvang L, Sorensen A, et al. Temporal trends in incidence and patient characteristics in cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction from 2010 to 2017: a Danish cohort study. European journal of heart failure. 2019. Epub 2019/07/25. pmid:31339222.
- 2. Goldberg RJ, Spencer FA, Gore JM, Lessard D, Yarzebski J. Thirty-year trends (1975 to 2005) in the magnitude of, management of, and hospital death rates associated with cardiogenic shock in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a population-based perspective. Circulation. 2009;119(9):1211–9. Epub 2009/02/25. pmid:19237658; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2730832.
- 3. Goldberg RJ, Makam RC, Yarzebski J, McManus DD, Lessard D, Gore JM. Decade-Long Trends (2001–2011) in the Incidence and Hospital Death Rates Associated with the In-Hospital Development of Cardiogenic Shock after Acute Myocardial Infarction. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016;9(2):117–25. Epub 2016/02/18. pmid:26884615; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4794369.
- 4. Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, Fuernau G, de Waha S, Meyer-Saraei R, et al. PCI Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock. The New England journal of medicine. 2017;377(25):2419–32. Epub 2017/10/31. pmid:29083953.
- 5. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, Ferenc M, Olbrich HG, Hausleiter J, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. The New England journal of medicine. 2012;367(14):1287–96. Epub 2012/08/28. pmid:22920912.
- 6. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, Sanborn TA, White HD, Talley JD, et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. The New England journal of medicine. 1999;341(9):625–34. Epub 1999/08/26. pmid:10460813.
- 7. Samanta R, Narayan A, Kovoor P, Thiagalingam A. Long-term survival in patients presenting with STEMI complicated by out of hospital cardiac arrest. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2019;22:50–4. Epub 2019/01/04. pmid:30603662; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6305836.
- 8. Ostenfeld S, Lindholm MG, Kjaergaard J, Bro-Jeppesen J, Moller JE, Wanscher M, et al. Prognostic implication of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with cardiogenic shock and acute myocardial infarction. Resuscitation. 2015;87:57–62. Epub 2014/12/06. pmid:25475249.
- 9. Ueki Y, Mohri M, Matoba T, Tsujita Y, Yamasaki M, Tachibana E, et al. Characteristics and Predictors of Mortality in Patients With Cardiovascular Shock in Japan- Results From the Japanese Circulation Society Cardiovascular Shock Registry. Circ J. 2016;80(4):852–9. Epub 2016/03/24. pmid:27001192.
- 10. Puymirat E, Fagon JY, Aegerter P, Diehl JL, Monnier A, Hauw-Berlemont C, et al. Cardiogenic shock in intensive care units: evolution of prevalence, patient profile, management and outcomes, 1997–2012. European journal of heart failure. 2017;19(2):192–200. Epub 2016/10/07. pmid:27709722.
- 11. Mentzelopoulos SD, Zakynthinos SG. Post-cardiac arrest syndrome: pathological processes, biomarkers and vasopressor support, and potential therapeutic targets. Resuscitation. 2017;121:A12–A4. Epub 2017/10/23. pmid:29055751.
- 12. Lemiale V, Dumas F, Mongardon N, Giovanetti O, Charpentier J, Chiche JD, et al. Intensive care unit mortality after cardiac arrest: the relative contribution of shock and brain injury in a large cohort. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(11):1972–80. Epub 2013/08/15. pmid:23942856.
- 13. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Chaitman BR, Bax JJ, Morrow DA, et al. Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction (2018). Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2018;72(18):2231–64. Epub 2018/08/30. pmid:30153967.
- 14. Vallabhajosyula S, Jentzer JC, Kotecha AA, Murphree DH Jr., Barreto EF, Khanna AK, et al. Development and performance of a novel vasopressor-driven mortality prediction model in septic shock. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8(1):112. Epub 2018/11/24. pmid:30467807; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6250607.
- 15. Bernard SA, Gray TW, Buist MD, Jones BM, Silvester W, Gutteridge G, et al. Treatment of comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with induced hypothermia. The New England journal of medicine. 2002;346(8):557–63. Epub 2002/02/22. pmid:11856794.
- 16. Nielsen N, Wetterslev J, Cronberg T, Erlinge D, Gasche Y, Hassager C, et al. Targeted temperature management at 33 degrees C versus 36 degrees C after cardiac arrest. The New England journal of medicine. 2013;369(23):2197–206. Epub 2013/11/19. pmid:24237006.
- 17. Bro-Jeppesen J, Kjaergaard J, Horsted TI, Wanscher MC, Nielsen SL, Rasmussen LS, et al. The impact of therapeutic hypothermia on neurological function and quality of life after cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2009;80(2):171–6. Epub 2008/12/30. pmid:19111378.
- 18. Bro-Jeppesen J, Hassager C, Wanscher M, Ostergaard M, Nielsen N, Erlinge D, et al. Targeted temperature management at 33 degrees C versus 36 degrees C and impact on systemic vascular resistance and myocardial function after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a sub-study of the Target Temperature Management Trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(5):663–72. Epub 2014/10/02. pmid:25270900.
- 19. Nimmo GR, Mackenzie SJ, Grant IS. Haemodynamic and oxygen transport effects of propofol infusion in critically ill adults. Anaesthesia. 1994;49(6):485–9. Epub 1994/06/01. pmid:8017590.
- 20. Attana P, Lazzeri C, Picariello C, Dini CS, Gensini GF, Valente S. Lactate and lactate clearance in acute cardiac care patients. European heart journal Acute cardiovascular care. 2012;1(2):115–21. Epub 2012/06/01. pmid:24062898; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3760525.
- 21. Obling L, Frydland M, Hansen R, Moller-Helgestad OK, Lindholm MG, Holmvang L, et al. Risk factors of late cardiogenic shock and mortality in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients. European heart journal Acute cardiovascular care. 2017:2048872617706503. Epub 2017/04/30. pmid:28452562.
- 22. Nimmo GR. Mixed venous oxygen saturation in AMI. American heart journal. 1992;123(6):1720–1. Epub 1992/06/01. pmid:1595561.
- 23. Sumimoto T, Takayama Y, Iwasaka T, Sugiura T, Takeuchi M, Hasegawa T, et al. Mixed venous oxygen saturation as a guide to tissue oxygenation and prognosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction. American heart journal. 1991;122(1 Pt 1):27–33. Epub 1991/07/01. pmid:2063757.
- 24. Zhang Z, Xu X. Lactate clearance is a useful biomarker for the prediction of all-cause mortality in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis*. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(9):2118–25. Epub 2014/05/07. pmid:24797375.
- 25. Fuernau G, Beck J, Desch S, Eitel I, Jung C, Erbs S, et al. Mild Hypothermia in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Myocardial Infarction. Circulation. 2019;139(4):448–57. Epub 2018/07/22. pmid:30026282.
- 26. Bro-Jeppesen J, Annborn M, Hassager C, Wise MP, Pelosi P, Nielsen N, et al. Hemodynamics and vasopressor support during targeted temperature management at 33 degrees C Versus 36 degrees C after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a post hoc study of the target temperature management trial*. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(2):318–27. Epub 2014/11/05. pmid:25365723.
- 27. Stub D, Bernard S, Duffy SJ, Kaye DM. Post cardiac arrest syndrome: a review of therapeutic strategies. Circulation. 2011;123(13):1428–35. Epub 2011/04/06. pmid:21464058.
- 28. Hassager C, Nagao K, Hildick-Smith D. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: in-hospital intervention strategies. Lancet (London, England). 2018;391(10124):989–98. Epub 2018/03/15. pmid:29536863.
- 29. Kern KB, Hilwig RW, Rhee KH, Berg RA. Myocardial dysfunction after resuscitation from cardiac arrest: an example of global myocardial stunning. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1996;28(1):232–40. Epub 1996/07/01. pmid:8752819.
- 30. Jentzer JC, Chonde MD, Dezfulian C. Myocardial Dysfunction and Shock after Cardiac Arrest. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:314796. Epub 2015/10/01. pmid:26421284; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4572400.
- 31. Jentzer JC, van Diepen S, Barsness GW, Henry TD, Menon V, Rihal CS, et al. Cardiogenic Shock Classification to Predict Mortality in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2019;74(17):2117–28. Epub 2019/09/25. pmid:31548097.
- 32. Soholm H, Hassager C, Lippert F, Winther-Jensen M, Thomsen JH, Friberg H, et al. Factors Associated With Successful Resuscitation After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and Temporal Trends in Survival and Comorbidity. Ann Emerg Med. 2015;65(5):523–31 e2. Epub 2014/12/30. pmid:25544733.
- 33. Patterson T, Perkins GD, Hassan Y, Moschonas K, Gray H, Curzen N, et al. Temporal Trends in Identification, Management, and Clinical Outcomes After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: Insights From the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project Database. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11(6):e005346. Epub 2018/06/07. pmid:29871939.
- 34. Jentzer JC, van Diepen S, Henry TD. Understanding How Cardiac Arrest Complicates the Analysis of Clinical Trials of Cardiogenic Shock. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020;13(9):e006692. Epub 2020/08/31. pmid:32862695.