Aims Patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) suffer from persistent exercise limitation despite improvement of their heart failure syndrome. Exercise training (ET) programmes to improve aerobic capacity have shown modest efficacy. High‐intensity interval training (HIIT), as an alternative to moderate continuous training, has not been systematically tested in this population. We examine the feasibility of a short, personalized HIIT programme in patients with LVAD and describe its effects on aerobic capacity and left ventricular remodelling. Methods and results Patients on durable LVAD support were prospectively enrolled in a 15‐session, 5 week HIIT programme. Turndown echocardiogram, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, and cardiopulmonary exercise test were performed before and after HIIT. Training workloads for each subject were based on pretraining peak cardiopulmonary exercise test work rate (W). Percentage of prescribed training workload completed and adverse events were recorded for each subject. Fifteen subjects were enrolled [10 men, age = 51 (29–71) years, HeartMate II = 12, HeartMate 3 = 3, and time on LVAD = 18 (3–64) months]. Twelve completed post‐training testing. HIIT was well tolerated, and 90% (inter‐quartile range: 78, 99%) of the prescribed workload (W) was completed with no major adverse events. Improvements were seen in aV̇O₂ at ventilatory threshold [7.1 (6.5, 9.1) to 8.5 (7.7, 9.3) mL/kg/min, P = 0.04], work rate at ventilatory threshold [44 (14, 54) to 55 (21, 66) W, P = 0.05], and left ventricular end‐diastolic volume [168 (144, 216) to 159 (124, 212) mL, n = 7, P = 0.02]. HIIT had no effect on maximal oxygen consumption (V̇O_2peak) or Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score. Conclusions Cardiopulmonary exercise test‐guided HIIT is feasible and can improve submaximal aerobic capacity in stable patients with chronic LVAD support. Further studies are needed on its effects on the myocardium and its potential role in cardiac rehabilitation programmes.

Background: Expert opinion and professional society statements have called for multi-tier care systems for the management of cardiogenic shock (CS). However, little is known about how to pragmatically define centers with different levels of care (LOC) for CS.Methods: Eleven of 23 hospitals within our healthcare system sharing a common electronic health record were classified as different LOC according to their highest mechanical circulatory support (MCS) capabilities: Level 1 (L-1)—durable left ventricular assist device, Level 1A (L-1A)—extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Level 2 (L-2)—intra-aortic balloon pump and percutaneous ventricular assist device; and Level 3 (L-3)—no MCS. All adult patients treated for CS (International Classification of Diseases, ICD-10 code R57.0) between 2016 and 2022 were included. Etiologies of CS were identified using associated diagnostic codes. Management strategies and outcomes across LOC were compared.Results: Higher LOC centers had higher volumes: L-1 (n = 1): 2,831 patients, L-1A (n = 4): 3,452, L-2 (n = 1): 340, and L-3 (n = 5): 780. Emergency room admissions were more common in lower LOC (96% at L-3 vs. 46% L-1; p < 0.001), while hospital transfers were predominant at higher LOC (40% at L-1 vs. 2.7% at L-3; p < 0.001). Men comprised 61% of the cohort. Patients were younger in the higher LOC [69 (60–78) years at L-1 vs. 77 (67–85) years at L-3; p < 0.001]. Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI)-CS and acute heart failure (AHF)-CS were concentrated in higher LOC centers while other etiologies of CS were more common in L-2 and L-3 (p < 0.001). Cardiac arrest on admission was more prevalent in lower LOC centers (L-1: 2.8% vs. L-3: 12.1%; p < 0.001). Patients with AMI-CS received more percutaneous coronary intervention in lower LOC (51% L-2 vs. 29% L-1; p < 0.01) but more coronary arterial bypass graft surgery at higher LOC (L-1: 42% vs. L-1A: 23%; p < 0.001). MCS use was consistent across levels for AMI-CS but was more frequent in higher LOC for AHF-CS patients (L-1: 28% vs. L-2: 10%; p < 0.001). Despite increasing in-hospital mortality with decreasing LOC, no significant difference was seen after multivariable adjustment.Conclusion: This is the first report describing a pragmatic classification of LOC for CS which, based on MCS capabilities, can discriminate between centers with distinct demographics, practice patterns, and outcomes. This classification may serve as the basis for future research and the creation of CS systems of care.

Outcomes for cardiogenic shock (CS) patients remain relatively poor despite significant advancements in primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and temporary circulatory support (TCS) technologies. Mortality from CS shows great disparities that seem to reflect large variations in access to care and physician practice patterns. Recent reports of different models to standardize care in CS have shown considerable potential at improving outcomes. The creation of regional, integrated, 3-tiered systems, would facilitate standardized interventions and equitable access to care. Multidisciplinary CS teams at Level I centers would direct care in a hub-and-spoke model through jointly developed protocols and real-time shared decision making. Levels II and III centers would provide early access to life-saving therapies and safe transfer to designated hub centers. In regions with large geographical distances, the implementation of telemedicine-cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) care can be an important resource for the creation of effective systems of care.