Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cardiogenic Shock in Older Adults

  • Elderly + Heart Disease (K. Dharmarajan, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cardiogenic shock, a shock state with underlying cardiovascular insult as the precipitating event, carries a high mortality irrespective of the actual inciting pathology. This remains one disease entity in cardiovascular medicine that has not seen vast improvements over the past several decades. With the exception of the realization of the importance of early revascularization in the setting of acute myocardial infarction, there have been few breakthroughs in the treatment of this devastating condition. How to optimize outcomes for older adults with cardiogenic shock is an even more challenging task as the studies in this field have largely failed to include this patient demographic. Mechanical circulatory support devices hold great promise to improve outcomes for this condition, though their invasive nature and high rate of complications raise concern over their use in older patient populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Leor J, Goldbourt U, Reicher-Reiss H, Kaplinsky E, Behar S. Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction in patients without heart failure on admission: incidence, risk factors, and outcome. SPRINT study group. Am J Med. 1993;94(3):265–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Carnendran L, Abboud R, Sleeper LA, Gurunathan R, Webb JG, Menon V, et al. Trends in cardiogenic shock: report from the SHOCK study. The SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK? Eur Heart J. 2001;22(6):472–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Furman MI, Dauerman HL, Goldberg RJ, Yarzebski J, Lessard D, Gore JM. Twenty-two year (1975 to 1997) trends in the incidence, in-hospital and long-term case fatality rates from initial Q-wave and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction: a multi-hospital, community-wide perspective. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37(6):1571–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Babaev A, Frederick PD, Pasta DJ, Every N, Sichrovsky T, Hochman JS, et al. Trends in management and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. JAMA. 2005;294(4):448–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Alexander KP, Newby LK, Armstrong PW, Cannon CP, Gibler WB, Rich MW, et al. Acute coronary care in the elderly, part II: ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: a scientific statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology: in collaboration with the Society of Geriatric Cardiology. Circulation. 2007;115(19):2570–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. White HD, Barbash GI, Califf RM, Simes RJ, Granger CB, Weaver WD, et al. Age and outcome with contemporary thrombolytic therapy. Results from the GUSTO-I trial. Global utilization of streptokinase and TPA for occluded coronary arteries trial. Circulation. 1996;94(8):1826–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Maggioni AA, Maseri A, Fresco C, Franzosi MG, Mauri F, Santoro E, et al. Age-related increase in mortality among patients with first myocardial infarctions treated with thrombolysis. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(20):1442–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mehta RH, Granger CB, Alexander KP, Bossone E, White HD, Sketch Jr MH. Reperfusion strategies for acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: benefits and risks. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45(4):471–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gurwitz JH, Col NF, Avorn J. The exclusion of the elderly and women from clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1992;268(11):1417–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Reynolds HR, Hochman JS. Cardiogenic shock: current concepts and improving outcomes. Circulation. 2008;117(5):686–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Garan AR, Rabbani LE. Coronary artery interventions in cardiogenic shock. In: Lanzer P, editor. PanVascular Medicine. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2015. p. 2173–203.

  12. Holmes Jr DR, Berger PB, Hochman JS, Granger CB, Thompson TD, Califf RM, et al. Cardiogenic shock in patients with acute ischemic syndromes with and without ST-segment elevation. Circulation. 1999;100(20):2067–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jacobs AK, French JK, Col J, Sleeper LA, Slater JN, Carnendran L, et al. Cardiogenic shock with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded coronaries for Cardiogenic shocK? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36(3 Suppl A):1091–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hochman JS, Buller CE, Sleeper LA, Boland J, Dzavik V, Sanborn TA, et al. Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction--etiologies, management and outcome: a report from the SHOCK trial registry. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36(3 Suppl A):1063–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Thiele H, Allam B, Chatellier G, Schuler G, Lafont A. Shock in acute myocardial infarction: the Cape Horn for trials? Eur Heart J. 2010;31(15):1828–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Anderson ML, Peterson ED, Peng SA, Wang TY, Ohman EM, Bhatt DL, et al. Differences in the profile, treatment, and prognosis of patients with cardiogenic shock by myocardial infarction classification: a report from NCDR. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6(6):708–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. • Kolte D, Khera S, Dabhadkar KC, Agarwal S, Aronow WS, Timmermans R, et al. Trends in coronary angiography, revascularization, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock complicating non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2016;117(1):1–9. This article emphasizes the importance of revascularization in patients with NSTEMI with and without cardiogenic shock and in-hospital mortality improvement among this population.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Menon V, Webb JG, Hillis LD, Sleeper LA, Abboud R, Dzavik V, et al. Outcome and profile of ventricular septal rupture with cardiogenic shock after myocardial infarction: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries in cardiogenic shocK? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36(3 Suppl A):1110–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Thompson CR, Buller CE, Sleeper LA, Antonelli TA, Webb JG, Jaber WA, et al. Cardiogenic shock due to acute severe mitral regurgitation complicating acute myocardial infarction: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. SHould we use emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries in cardiogenic shocK? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36(3 Suppl A):1104–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Redfors B, Angerås O, Råmunddal T, Dworeck C, Haraldsson I, Ioanes D, et al. 17-year trends in incidence and prognosis of cardiogenic shock in patients with acute myocardial infarction in western Sweden. Int J Cardiol. 2015;185:256–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Menon V, Slater JN, White HD, Sleeper LA, Cocke T, Hochman JS. Acute myocardial infarction complicated by systemic hypoperfusion without hypotension: report of the SHOCK trial registry. Am J Med. 2000;108(5):374–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hochman JS. Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: expanding the paradigm. Circulation. 2003;107(24):2998–3002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Makam RP, Erskine N, Yarzebski J, Lessard D, Lau J, Allison J, et al. Decade long trends (2001–2011) in duration of pre-hospital delay among elderly patients hospitalized for an acute myocardial infarction. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5 Suppl 4.

  25. Becker RC, Gore JM, Lambrew C, Weaver WD, Rubison RM, French WJ, et al. A composite view of cardiac rupture in the United States national registry of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;27(6):1321–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Killip 3rd T, Kimball JT. Treatment of myocardial infarction in a coronary care unit. A two year experience with 250 patients. Am J Cardiol. 1967;20(4):457–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(9):625–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, Dzavik V, Buller CE, Aylward P, et al. Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2006;295(21):2511–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. •• Bangalore S, Gupta N, Guo Y, Lala A, Balsam L, Roswell RO, et al. Outcomes with invasive vs conservative management of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Am J Med. 2015;128(6):601–8. A retrospective report examining the largest cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction which demonstrates that even in elderly patients, invasive management had significantly lower mortality compared to conservative therapies.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Katz JN, Stebbins AL, Alexander JH, Reynolds HR, Pieper KS, Ruzyllo W, et al. Predictors of 30-day mortality in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction despite a patent infarct artery. Am Heart J. 2009;158(4):680–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sleeper LA, Reynolds HR, White HD, Webb JG, Dzavik V, Hochman JS. A severity scoring system for risk assessment of patients with cardiogenic shock: a report from the SHOCK trial and registry. Am Heart J. 2010;160(3):443–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Thiele H, Ohman EM, Desch S, Eitel I, de Waha S. Management of cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(20):1223–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bucholz EM, Krumholz HA, Krumholz HM. Underweight, markers of cachexia, and mortality in acute myocardial infarction: a prospective cohort study of elderly medicare beneficiaries. PLoS Med. 2016;13(4):e1001998.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Afilalo J, Eisenberg MJ, Morin JF, Bergman H, Monette J, Noiseux N, et al. Gait speed as an incremental predictor of mortality and major morbidity in elderly patients undergoing cardiac surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56(20):1668–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Alfredsson J, Stebbins A, Brennan JM, Matsouaka R, Afilalo J, Peterson ED, et al. Gait Speed predicts 30-day mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. Circulation. 2016;133(14):1351–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dzavik V, Sleeper LA, Picard MH, Sanborn TA, Lowe AM, Gin K, et al. Outcome of patients aged ≥75 years in the SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries in cardiogenic shocK (SHOCK) trial: do elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock respond differently to emergent revascularization? Am Heart J. 2005;149(6):1128–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Dzavik V, Sleeper LA, Cocke TP, Moscucci M, Saucedo J, Hosat S, et al. Early revascularization is associated with improved survival in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a report from the SHOCK trial registry. Eur Heart J. 2003;24(9):828–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lim HS, Farouque O, Andrianopoulos N, Yan BP, Lim CC, Brennan AL, et al. Survival of elderly patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2(2):146–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sanborn TA, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, French JK, Bergman G, Parikh M, et al. Correlates of one-year survival inpatients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: angiographic findings from the SHOCK trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42(8):1373–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, et al. 2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI focused update on primary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(10):1235–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Thiele H, Desch S, Piek JJ, Stepinska J, Oldroyd K, Serpytis P, et al. Multivessel versus culprit lesion only percutaneous revascularization plus potential staged revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: design and rationale of CULPRIT-SHOCK trial. Am Heart J. 2016;172:160–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Bangalore S, Gupta N, Genereux P, Guo Y, Pancholy S, Feit F. Trend in percutaneous coronary intervention volume following the COURAGE and BARI-2D trials: insight from over 8.1 million percutaneous coronary interventions. Int J Cardiol. 2015;183:6–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Mehta RH, Lopes RD, Ballotta A, Frigiola A, Sketch Jr MH, Bossone E, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass surgery for cardiogenic shock and multivessel coronary artery disease? Am Heart J. 2010;159(1):141–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Aissaoui N, Puymirat E, Tabone X, Charbonnier B, Schiele F, Lefèvre T, et al. Improved outcome of cardiogenic shock at the acute stage of myocardial infarction: a report from the USIK 1995, USIC 2000, and FAST-MI French nationwide registries. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(20):2535–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Jeger RV, Radovanovic D, Hunziker PR, Pfisterer ME, Stauffer J-C, Erne P, et al. Ten-year trends in the incidence and treatment of cardiogenic shock. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(9):618–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bauer T, Zeymer U, Hochadel M, Möllmann H, Weidinger F, Zahn R, et al. Use and outcomes of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (from the EHS-PCI Registry). Am J Cardiol. 2012;109(7):941–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Abu-Omar Y, Tsui SS. Mechanical circulatory support for AMI and cardiogenic shock. J Card Surg. 2010;25(4):434–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Ouweneel DM, Henriques JP. Percutaneous cardiac support devices for cardiogenic shock: current indications and recommendations. Heart. 2012;98(16):1246–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Werdan K, Gielen S, Ebelt H, Hochman JS. Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(3):156–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Prondzinsky R, Lemm H, Swyter M, Wegener N, Unverzagt S, Carter JM, et al. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the prospective, randomized IABP SHOCK Trial for attenuation of multiorgan dysfunction syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(1):152–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, Ferenc M, Olbrich HG, Hausleiter J, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(14):1287–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Bahekar A, Singh M, Singh S, Bhuriya R, Ahmad K, Khosla S, et al. Cardiovascular outcomes using intra-aortic balloon pump in high-risk acute myocardial infarction with or without cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther. 2012;17(1):44–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. American College of Emergency P, Society for Cardiovascular A, Interventions, O’Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(4):e78–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, Collet JP, Cremer J, Falk V, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Kardiol Pol. 2014;72(12):1253–379.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. O’Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, Casey Jr DE, Chung MK, de Lemos JA, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82(1):E1–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Steg PG, James SK, Atar D, Badano LP, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C, Borger MA, et al. ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(20):2569–619.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Cheng R, Hachamovitch R, Kittleson M, Patel J, Arabia F, Moriguchi J, et al. Complications of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for treatment of cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis of 1,866 adult patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97(2):610–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Beurtheret S, Mordant P, Paoletti X, Marijon E, Celermajer DS, Léger P, et al. Emergency circulatory support in refractory cardiogenic shock patients in remote institutions: a pilot study (the cardiac-RESCUE program). Eur Heart J. 2013;34(2):112–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Muller G, Flecher E, Lebreton G, Luyt CE, Trouillet JL, Brechot N, et al. The ENCOURAGE mortality risk score and analysis of long-term outcomes after VA-ECMO for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(3):370–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Schmidt M, Burrell A, Roberts L, Bailey M, Sheldrake J, Rycus PT, et al. Predicting survival after ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock: the survival after veno-arterial-ECMO (SAVE)-score. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(33):2246–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. • Stretch R, Sauer CM, Yuh DD, Bonde P. National trends in the utilization of short-term mechanical circulatory support: incidence, outcomes, and cost analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(14):1407–15. This report details the rising use of mechanical circulatory support devices for patients in cardiogenic shock which correlates temporally with a trend in declining mortality with this condition.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Layde PM, Beam CA, Broste SK, Connors Jr AF, Desbiens N, Lynn J, et al. Surrogates’ predictions of seriously ill patients’ resuscitation preferences. Arch Fam Med. 1995;4:518–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA

    Amirali Masoumi & A. Reshad Garan

  2. Department of Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA

    Hannah R. Rosenblum

Authors
  1. Amirali Masoumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hannah R. Rosenblum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Reshad Garan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Reshad Garan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interests

Drs Masoumi & Rosenblum declare no conflicts of interest. Dr. Garan has received honoraria from Abiomed.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain studies with human or animal subjects performed by the author.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Elderly + Heart Disease

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Masoumi, A., Rosenblum, H.R. & Garan, A.R. Cardiogenic Shock in Older Adults. Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep 10, 38 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12170-016-0522-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12170-016-0522-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation