Background: Vasopressors are frequently utilized for blood pressure stabilization in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), although with a questionable benefit. Obtaining central venous access is time consuming and may be associated with serious complications. Hence, we thought to evaluate whether the administration of vasopressors through a peripheral venous catheter (PVC) is a safe and effective alternative for the management of patients with CS presenting to the intensive cardiovascular care unit (ICCU). Methods: A prospective single-center study was conducted to compare the safety and outcomes of vasopressors administered via a PVC vs. a central venous catheter (CVC) in patients presenting with CS over a 12-month period. Results: A total of 1100 patients were included; of them, 139 (12.6%) required a vasopressor treatment due to shock, with 108 (78%) treated via a PVC and 31 (22%) treated via a CVC according to the discretion of the treating physician. The duration of the vasopressor administration was shorter in the PVC group compared with the CVC group (2.5 days vs. 4.2 days, respectively, p < 0.05). Phlebitis and the extravasation of vasopressors occurred at similar rates in the PVC and CVC groups (5.7% vs. 3.3%, respectively, p = 0.33; 0.9% vs. 3.3%, respectively, p = 0.17). Nevertheless, the bleeding rate was higher in the CVC group compared with the PVC group (3% vs. 0%, p = 0.03). Conclusions: The administration of vasopressor infusions via PVC for the management of patients with CS is feasible and safe in patients with cardiogenic shock. Further studies are needed to establish this method of treatment.

Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction is a complex clinical condition associated with dismal prognosis. Routine early target vessel revascularization remains the most effective treatment to substantially improve outcomes, but mortality remains high. Temporary circulatory support devices have emerged with the aim to enhance cardiac unloading and improve end-organ perfusion. However, quality evidence to guide device selection, optimal installation timing, and post-implantation management are scarce, stressing the importance of multidisciplinary expert care. This review focuses on the contemporary use of short-term support devices in the setting of cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction, including the common challenges associated this practice.

(1) Background: The impact of armed conflicts on public health is undeniable, with psychological stress emerging as a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Nevertheless, contemporary data regarding the influence of war on CVD, and especially on acute coronary syndrome (ACS), are scarce. Hence, the aim of the current study was to assess the repercussions of war on the admission and prognosis of patients admitted to a tertiary care center intensive cardiovascular care unit (ICCU). (2) Methods: All patients admitted to the ICCU during the first three months of the Israel–Hamas war (2023) were included and compared with all patients admitted during the same period in 2022. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. (3) Results: A total of 556 patients (184 females [33.1%]) with a median age of 70 (IQR 59–80) were included. Of them, 295 (53%) were admitted to the ICCU during the first three months of the war. Fewer Arab patients and more patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infraction (STEMI) were admitted during the war period (21.8% vs. 13.2%, p < 0.001, and 31.9% vs. 24.1%, p = 0.04, respectively), whereas non-STEMI (NSTEMI) patients were admitted more frequently in the pre-war year (19.3% vs. 25.7%, p = 0.09). In-hospital mortality was similar in both groups (4.4% vs. 3.4%, p = 0.71; HR 1.42; 95% CI 0.6–3.32, p = 0.4). (4) Conclusions: During the first three months of the war, fewer Arab patients and more STEMI patients were admitted to the ICCU. Nevertheless, in-hospital mortality was similar in both groups.

Background: Primary ventricular fibrillation (VF) and sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) are potentially lethal complications in patients suffering from acute myocardial infarction (MI). In contrast with the profound data regarding the incidence and prognostic value of ventricular arrhythmias in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients, data regarding contemporary non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients with ventricular arrhythmias is scarce. The aim of the current study was to investigate the incidence of VF/VT complicating NSTEMI among patients admitted to an intensive coronary care unit (ICCU). Methods: Prospective, single-center study of patients diagnosed with NSTEMI admitted to ICCU between June 2019 and December 2022. Data including demographics, presenting symptoms, comorbid conditions, and physical examination, as well as laboratory and imaging data, were analyzed. Patients were continuously monitored for arrhythmias during their admission. The study endpoint was the development of VF/sustained VT during admission. Results: A total of 732 patients were admitted to ICCU with a diagnosis of NSTEMI. Of them, six (0.8%) patients developed VF/VT during their admission. Nevertheless, three were excluded after they were misdiagnosed with NSTEMI instead of posterior ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Hence, only three (0.4%) NSTEMI patients had VF/VT during admission. None of the patients died during 1-year follow-up. Conclusions: VF/VT in NSTEMI patients treated according to contemporary guidelines including early invasive strategy is rare, suggesting these patients may not need routine monitoring and ICCU setup.