Centers who adopted a regional shock protocol emphasizing the delivery of early MCS with invasive hemodynamic monitoring can achieve rapid door to support times and can improve survival in patients who present with AMICS. Larger national studies will be needed to further validate this pilot feasibility study.

Objectives: We applied the cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) shock staging system to patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) who were enrolled in the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI). Background: The SCAI shock staging system provides a framework for evaluation of patients with CS based on clinical and hemodynamic parameters, but has not been validated in patients with AMI-CS managed with a contemporary treatment algorithm that incorporates early use of Impella. Methods: Consecutive patients enrolled in NCSI were identified, all of whom were managed with invasive hemodynamic guidance and supported with Impella. Patients were retrospectively categorized into appropriate SCAI shock stages, and outcomes were assessed accordingly. Results: A total of 300 patients were included in the analysis; 182 patients (61%) presented in Stage C shock, 25 (8%) in Stage D, and 93 (31%) in Stage E. Survival to hospital discharge was 76, 76, and 58%, respectively (p = .006). Survival was <20% among patients in Stage E at 24 hr, regardless of baseline stage. There was near perfect agreement in shock staging between two independent clinicians at baseline (kappa = 0.975, 95% CI, 0.95-1.00, p < .001) and at 24 hr (kappa = 0.985, 95% CI, 0.77-1.00, p < .001). Conclusion: In patients with AMI-CS enrolled in NCSI, SCAI Shock classification was reproducible, and predicted survival when applied at presentation and at 24 hr.

Circumferential adventitial delivery of very low doses of EtOH may be a promising alternative to energy-based systems to achieve dose-dependent, and predictable renal denervation. Further study is warranted.

IMPORTANCE It is not clear how often patients receive aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) while receiving oral anticoagulation with warfarin sodium without a clear therapeutic indication for aspirin, such as a mechanical heart valve replacement, recent percutaneous coronary intervention, or acute coronary syndrome. The clinical outcomes of such patients treated with warfarin and aspirin therapy compared with warfarin monotherapy are not well defined to date.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the frequency and outcomes of adding aspirin to warfarin for patients without a clear therapeutic indication for combination therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA registry-based cohort study of adults enrolled at 6 anticoagulation clinics in Michigan (January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017) who were receiving warfarin therapy for atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism without documentation of a recent myocardial infarction or history of valve replacement. EXPOSURE Aspirin use without therapeutic indication. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESRates of any bleeding, major bleeding events, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and thrombotic events at 1, 2, and 3 years. RESULTSOf the study cohort of 6539 patients (3326 men [50.9%]; mean [SD] age, 66.1 [15.5] years), 2453 patients (37.5%) without a clear therapeutic indication for aspirin were receiving combination warfarin and aspirin therapy. Data from 2 propensity score-matched cohorts of 1844 patients were analyzed (warfarin and aspirin vs warfarin only). At 1 year, patients receiving combination warfarin and aspirin compared with those receiving warfarin only had higher rates of overall bleeding (cumulative incidence, 26.0%; 95% CI, 23.8%-28.3% vs 20.3%; 95% CI, 18.3%-22.3%; P < .001), major bleeding (5.7%; 95% CI, 4.6%-7.1% vs 3.3%; 95% CI, 2.4%-4.3%; P < .001), emergency department visits for bleeding (13.3%; 95% CI, 11.6%-15.1% vs 9.8%; 95% CI, 8.4%-11.4%; P = .001), and hospitalizations for bleeding (8.1%; 6.8%-9.6% vs 5.2%; 4.1%-6.4%; P = .001). Rates of thrombosis were similar, with a 1-year cumulative incidence of 2.3% (95% CI, 1.6%-3.1%) for those receiving combination warfarin and aspirin therapy compared with 2.7% (95% CI, 2.0%-3.6%) for those receiving warfarin alone (P = .40). Similar findings persisted during 3 years of follow-up as well as in sensitivity analyses.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Compared with warfarin monotherapy, receipt of combination warfarin and aspirin therapy was associated with increased bleeding and similar observed rates of thrombosis. Further research is needed to better stratify which patients may benefit from aspirin while anticoagulated with warfarin for atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism; clinicians should be judicious in selecting patients for combination therapy.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract