Outcomes of temporary mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock due to end-stage heart failure

Background There are few reports of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) due to end-stage heart failure (ESHF). We evaluated our institutional MCS strategy and compared the outcomes of INTERMACS 1 and 2 patients with CS due to ESHF. Methods Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data (November 2014 to July 2019) from a single centre. ESHF was defined by a diagnosis of HF prior to presentation with CS. Other causes of CS (eg: acute myocardial infarction) were excluded. We compared the clinical course, complications and 90-day survival of patients with CS due to ESHF in INTERMACS profile 1 and 2. Results We included 60 consecutive patients with CS due to ESHF Differences in baseline characteristics were consistent with the INTERMACS profiles. The duration of MCS was similar between INTERMACS 1 and 2 patients (14 (10–33) vs 15 (7–23) days, p = 0.439). There was no significant difference in the number of patients with complications that required intervention. Compared to INTERMACS 2, INTERMACS 1 patients had more organ dysfunction on support and significant lower 90-day survival (66% vs 34%, p = 0.016). Conclusion Our temporary MCS strategy, including earlier intervention in patients with CS due to ESHF at INTERMACS 2 was associated with less organ dysfunction and better 90-day survival compared to INTERMACS 1 patients.