Background: There are limited data on the outcomes of acute myocardial infarction–car-diogenic shock (AMI-CS) in patients with concomitant cancer. Methods: A retrospective cohort of adult AMI-CS admissions was identified from the National Inpatient Sample (2000-2017) and stratified by active cancer, historical cancer, and no cancer. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, use of coronary angiography, use of percutaneous coronary intervention, do-not-resuscitate status, palliative care use, hospitalization costs, and hospital length of stay. Results: Of the 557,974 AMI-CS admissions during this 18-year period, active and historical cancers were noted in 14,826 (2.6%) and 27,073 (4.8%), respectively. From 2000 to 2017, there was a decline in active cancers (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.63-0.79]; P < .001) and an increase in historical cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.89-2.25]; P < .001). Compared with patients with no cancer, patients with active and historical cancer received less-frequent coronary angiography (57%, 67%, and 70%, respectively) and percutaneous coronary intervention (40%, 47%, and 49%%, respectively) and had higher do-not-resuscitate status (13%, 15%, 7%%, respectively) and palliative care use (12%, 10%, 6%%, respectively) (P < .001). Compared with those without cancer, higher in-hospital mortality was found in admissions with active cancer (45.9% vs 37.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.24-1.34]; P < .001) but not historical cancer (40.1% vs 37.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.98-1.04]; P = .39). AMI-CS admissions with cancer had a shorter hospitalization duration and lower costs (all P < .001). Conclusion: Concomitant cancer was associated with less use of guideline-directed pro-cedures. Active, but not historical, cancer was associated with higher mortality in patients with AMI-CS.

It is an honor to contribute to a tribute to my friend Richard Conti, a true pioneer in Cardiology, and in his earlier years a denizen of the Cath Lab. Dick coached me on transeptal puncture and years later I had the chance to return the favor by helping him get started with stenting. For many years at far flung venues I looked forward to getting together with him in the ACCEL office to talk about late breaking trials and new breakthroughs. From Sylvan Weinberg to Dick to Fred Bove and my brief stint chairing ACCEL, the interactions with Dick were a highlight of the meetings as well as the post meeting activities, and golf. It was all fun and I miss it. It seems appropriate in honoring Dick to pick a Cath Lab topic that is both old and new.

BACKGROUND: Although chronic total occlusions (CTOs) are common in older adults, they are less likely to be offered CTO percutaneous coronary intervention for angina relief than younger adults. The health status impact of CTO percutaneous coronary intervention in adults aged ≥75 years has not been studied. We sought to compare technical success rates and angina-related health status outcomes at 12 months between adults aged ≥75 and <75 years in the OPEN-CTO (Outcomes, Patient Health Status, and Efficiency in Chronic Total Occlusion) registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: Angina-related health status was assessed with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (score range 0–100, higher scores denote less angina). Technical success rates were compared using hierarchical modified Poisson regression, and 12-month health status was compared using hierarchical multivariable linear regression between adults aged ≥75 and <75 years. Among 1000 participants, 19.8% were ≥75 years with a mean age of 79.5±4.1 years. Age ≥75 years was associated with a lower likelihood of technical success (adjusted risk ratio=0.92 [95% CI, 0.86–0.99; P=0.02]) and numerically higher rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (9.1% versus 5.9%, P=0.10). There was no difference in Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary Score at 12 months between adults aged ≥75 and <75 years (adjusted difference=0.9 [95% CI, −1.4 to 3.1; P=0.44]). CONCLUSIONS: Despite modestly lower success rates and higher complication rates, adults aged ≥75 years experienced angina-related health status benefits after CTO-percutaneous coronary intervention that were similar in magnitude to adults aged <75 years. CTO percutaneous coronary intervention should not be withheld based on age alone in otherwise appropriate candidates.

Background: There has been increasing utilization of short-term mechanical circulatory support devices for a variety of clinical indications. Many patients have suboptimal iliofemoral access options or reasons why early mobilization is desirable. Axillary artery access is an option for these patients, but little is known about the utility of this approach to facilitate short-term use for circulatory support with microaxial pump devices. Methods: The Axillary Access Registry to Monitor Safety (ARMS) was a prospective, observational multicenter registry to study the feasibility and acute safety of mechanical circulatory support via percutaneous upper-extremity access. Results: One hundred and two patients were collected from 10 participating centers. Successful device implantation was 98% (100 of 102). Devices were implanted for a median of 2 days (interquartile range, 0-5 days; range, 0-35 days). Procedural complications included 10 bleeding events and 1 stroke. There were 3 patients with brachial plexus-related symptoms all consisting of C8 tingling and all arising after multiple days of support. Postprocedural access site hematoma or bleeding was noted in 9 patients. Device explantation utilized closure devices alone in 61%, stent grafts in 17%, balloon tamponade facilitated closure in 15%, and planned surgical explant in 5%. Duration of support appeared to be independently associated with a 1.1% increased odds of vascular complication per day ([95% CI, 0.0%-2.3%] P=0.05). Conclusions: Percutaneous axillary access for use with microaxial support pumps appears feasible with acceptable rates of bleeding despite early experience. Larger studies are necessary to confirm the pilot data presented here.

This is a focused review looking at the pharmacological support in cardiogenic shock. There are a plethora of data evaluating vasopressors and inotropes in septic shock, but the data are limited for cardiogenic shock. This review article describes in detail the pathophysiology of cardiogenic shock, the mechanism of action of different vasopressors and inotropes emphasizing their indications and potential side effects. This review article incorporates the currently used specific risk-prediction models in cardiogenic shock as well as integrates data from many trials on the use of vasopressors and inotropes. Lastly, this review seeks to discuss the future direction for vasoactive medications in cardiogenic shock.