Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock: Outcomes of the RECOVER III Postapproval Study by Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Shock Stage

Abstract

Background The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions proposed a staging system (A–E) to predict prognosis in cardiogenic shock. Herein, we report clinical outcomes of the RECOVER III study for the first time, according to Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock classification. Methods and Results The RECOVER III study is an observational, prospective, multicenter, single‐arm, postapproval study of patients with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with Impella support. Patients enrolled in the RECOVER III study were assigned a baseline Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stage. Staging was then repeated within 24 hours after initiation of Impella. Kaplan‐Meier survival curve analyses were conducted to assess survival across Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stages at both time points. At baseline assessment, 16.5%, 11.4%, and 72.2% were classified as stage C, D, and E, respectively. At ≤24‐hour assessment, 26.4%, 33.2%, and 40.0% were classified as stage C, D, and E, respectively. Thirty‐day survival among patients with stage C, D, and E shock at baseline was 59.7%, 56.5%, and 42.9%, respectively (P=0.003). Survival among patients with stage C, D, and E shock at ≤24 hours was 65.7%, 52.1%, and 29.5%, respectively (P<0.001). After multivariable analysis of impact of shock stage classifications at baseline and ≤24 hours, only stage E classification at ≤24 hours was a significant predictor of mortality (odds ratio, 4.8; P<0.001). Conclusions In a real‐world cohort of patients with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with Impella support, only stage E classification at ≤24 hours was significantly predictive of mortality, suggesting that response to therapy may be more important than clinical severity of shock at presentation.

Keywords

• acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock
• cardiogenic shock
• mechanical circulatory support
• percutaneous coronary intervention
• Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock class