Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening state of tissue hypoperfusion, associated to a very high risk of mortality, despite intensive monitoring and modern treatment modalities. Present review aims to describe the therapeutic advances in the management of CS. Areas of Uncertainty: Many uncertainties about CS management remain in clinical practice, and these relate to intensity of invasive monitoring, the type and timing of vasoactive therapies, the risk-benefit ratio of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) therapy and optimal ventilation mode. Furthermore, most of the data is coming from CS in setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), while for nonAMI-CS patients there are very few evidences for etiological or MCS therapies. Data Sources: The prospective multicentric acute heart failure registries that specifically presented characteristics of patients with CS, distinct to other phenotypes, were included in the present review. Relevant clinical trials investigating therapeutic strategies in post AMI-CS patients were added as source information. Several trials investigating vasoactive medications and metaanalysis providing information about benefits and risks of MCS were reviewed in the manuscript.

Appropriate ICD shocks are a common finding in patients with aLQTS and SCA irrespective of the underlying cause or structural heart disease. Thus, even in the presence of relevant acquired proarrhythmia ICD may be beneficial.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex multifactorial clinical syndrome, developing as a continuum, and progressing from the initial insult (underlying cause) to the subsequent occurrence of organ failure and death. There is a large phenotypic variability in CS, as a result of the diverse aetiologies, pathogenetic mechanisms, haemodynamics, and stages of severity. Although early revascularization remains the most important intervention for CS in settings of acute myocardial infarction, the administration of timely and effective antithrombotic therapy is critical to improving outcomes in these patients. In addition, other clinical settings or non‐acute myocardial infarction aetiologies, associated with high thrombotic risk, may require specific regimens of short‐term or long‐term antithrombotic therapy. In CS, altered tissue perfusion, inflammation, and multi‐organ dysfunction induce unpredictable alterations to antithrombotic drugs' pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Other interventions used in the management of CS, such as mechanical circulatory support, renal replacement therapies, or targeted temperature management, influence both thrombotic and bleeding risks and may require specific antithrombotic strategies. In order to optimize safety and efficacy of these therapies in CS, antithrombotic management should be more adapted to CS clinical scenario or specific device, with individualized antithrombotic regimens in terms of type of treatment, dose, and duration. In addition, patients with CS require a close and appropriate monitoring of antithrombotic therapies to safely balance the increased risk of bleeding and thrombosis.

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection pandemic has affected the care of patients with heart failure (HF). Several consensus documents describe the appropriate diagnostic algorithm and treatment approach for patients with HF and associated COVID-19 infection. However, few questions about the mechanisms by which COVID can exacerbate HF in patients with high-risk (Stage B) or symptomatic HF (Stage C) remain unanswered. Therefore, the type of HF occurring during infection is poorly investigated. The diagnostic differentiation and management should be focused on the identification of the HF phenotype, underlying causes, and subsequent tailored therapy. In this framework, the relationship existing between COVID and onset of acute decompensated HF, isolated right HF, and cardiogenic shock is questioned, and the specific management is mainly based on local hospital organization rather than a standardized model. Similarly, some specific populations such as advanced HF, heart transplant, patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD), or valve disease remain under investigated. In this systematic review, we examine recent advances regarding the relationships between HF and COVID-19 pandemic with respect to epidemiology, pathogenetic mechanisms, and differential diagnosis. Also, according to the recent HF guidelines definition, we highlight different clinical profile identification, pointing out the main concerns in understudied HF populations.

Coronary endarterectomy (CE) emerged as a necessity to achieve complete surgical myocardial revascularization in patients with diffusely diseased coronary arteries and it also serves as aid to coronary bypass grafting (CABG). The safety and postoperative prognosis of this procedure are still matters of debate. There are no clear preoperative indications, a standard technique has not yet been established as gold standard and the postoperative management differs depending on each institution. CE of the left anterior descending artery (LAD) is technically challenging and potentially hazardous with high risk of postoperative myocardial infarction. In this article, we describe the open technique for CE of the LAD with its specific details, which we believe could be the safest and the best reproductible option. To better understand the profile of a patient requiring such a procedure we present the case of a 73-years old male with diffused coronary artery disease (CAD) and a short review of literature.