Best of heart failure

30 hospitalization due to HF. Secondary outcomes include LVEF assessment at 6 and 12 months from randomization, quality of life scores, appropriate im- plantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy, and acute MI. Results are expected to be released in 2022. Revascularization strategies in patients with cardiogenic shock: from door-to-balloon to door-to-support Cardiogenic shock secondary to ICM results in hemodynamic disarray charac- terized by a loss of cardiac output leading to reduced end-organ perfusion and promoting pulmonary and venous congestion. When identified early, achieving several key hemodynamic objectives can reverse the shock state and prevent the onset of end-organ failure. One of these objectives is rapid restoration of coronary blood flow along with supporting systemic circulation and unloading the LV and/or right ventricle [ 4 ]. In acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), the landmark Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial identified that early revascularization improves long-term survival when com- pared to initial medical stabilization [ 15 ]. Revascularization was accomplished by either CABG or angioplasty. Since then, three decades have passed with little improvement in clinical outcomes for patients with CS. Patients with CS represent a minority of those undergoing CABG; yet, they have persistently high operative risks, accounting for 14% of deaths in CABG patients [ 16 ]. Recently, Thiele et al. showed that culprit-vessel-only revascularization as opposed to multivessel PCI during AMI-CS was associated with better clinical outcomes. Fig. 2. Study timeline of the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial sowing approximately 400 patients with left ventricular dysfunction randomized since August 2013 with 1:1 allocation between the percutaneous coronary intervention and optimal medical treatment arms. Curr Treat Options Cardio Med (2019) 21: 4 Page 5 of 12 4