Do All Nonsurvivors of Cardiogenic Shock Die With a Low Cardiac Index? *

“…26,47 This phenotype is characterized by systemic inflammatory response syndrome features, lower systemic vascular resistance, and a higher risk of sepsis and mortality. 48,49 Overlaid on this framework are 2 uncommon but hemodynamically distinct entities of normotensive CS and right ventricular (RV) CS. In the SHOCK trial registry, 5.2% of patients were normotensive with peripheral hypoperfusion despite an SBP >90 mm Hg.…”

Section: Hemodynamic Phenotypesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Diepen¹,

Katz²,

Albert³

et al. 2017

Circulation

1,274

1,165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cardiogenic shock is a high-acuity, potentially complex, and hemodynamically diverse state of end-organ hypoperfusion that is frequently associated with multisystem organ failure. Despite improving survival in recent years, patient morbidity and mortality remain high, and there are few evidence-based therapeutic interventions known to clearly improve patient outcomes. This scientific statement on cardiogenic shock summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, causes, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock; reviews contemporary best medical, surgical, mechanical circulatory support, and palliative care practices; advocates for the development of regionalized systems of care; and outlines future research priorities. Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a low-cardiac-output state resulting in life-threatening end-organ hypoperfusion and hypoxia.1,2 Acute myocardial infarction (MI) with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction remains the most frequent cause of CS. 1,3 Advances in reperfusion therapy have been associated with improvements in survival, but significant regional disparities in evidence-based care have been reported, and in-hospital mortality remains high (27%-51%).1,4-9 Management recommendations are distributed between disease-specific statements and guidelines, and a dedicated and comprehensive clinical resource in this area is lacking. Thus, consolidating the evidence to define contemporary best medical and surgical CS practices for both MI-associated CS and other types of CS may be an important step in knowledge translation to help attenuate disparities in evidence-based care.Regional systems of care coupled with treatment algorithms have improved survival in high-acuity time-sensitive conditions such as MI, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), and trauma.10-12 Applying a similar framework to CS management may lead to similar improvements in survival, and CS systems of care are emerging within existing regional cardiovascular emergency care networks; however, guidance from a national expert group on structure and systems of care has not been available. 13,14 Accordingly, the purposes of this American Heart Association (AHA) scientific statement on CS are to summarize our contemporary understanding of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and in-hospital best care practices into a single clinical resource document; to suggest a stepwise management algorithm that integrates medical, surgical, and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) therapies; and to propose a Mission: Lifelinesupported pathway for the development of integrated regionalized CS systems of care. DEFINITION OF CSAcute cardiac hemodynamic instability may result from disorders that impair function of the myocardium, valves, conduction system, or pericardium, either in isolation HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVESBefore the routine use of early revascularization, MIassociated CS had an in-hospital mortality exceeding 80%. A registry trial of 250 patients with acute MI described the association between bedside physical examination (Killip classification) for the as...

show abstract

“…In this regard, it has been shown that 45% of nonsurvivors of CS die with a satisfactory cardiac index (i.e. [2.2 l/min/m 2 ), and high SvO 2 , indicating that optimization of macrohaemodynamic parameters alone may fail to save the patient [10,11].…”

Section: Icu Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cardiogenic shock and nutrition: safe?

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cardiogenic shock is a common diagnosis in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), and is characterized by a decreased cardiac output in the presence of adequate intravascular volume associated with an inadequate tissue perfusion including a physiological reduction in the splanchnic territory. It may occur in isolation as a reflection of cardiac pathology, or it may be part of a shock syndrome involving other pathogenic mechanisms. As the use of enteral nutrition (EN) is associated with an increase in mesenteric arterial output, EN could be deleterious by overwhelming the mechanisms of mesenteric adaptation. Accordingly, EN has been suspected to increase the risk of mesenteric ischaemia, bacterial translocation and sepsis in ICU patients with cardiogenic shock. International guidelines recommend a cautious use of EN within 72 h following cardiogenic shock. Recent evidence indicates that mesenteric arterial output may decrease during parenteral nutrition administration, suggesting that parenteral nutrition could have a protective effect on splanchnic organs in ICU patients with cardiogenic shock. Contrary to former beliefs, several meta-analyses have shown that parenteral nutrition is not associated with increased mortality. Exclusive EN is associated with negative energy balance and the combination of EN with supplemental parenteral nutrition during the first days following ICU admission has been proposed to prevent negative energy balance. Such a nutritional strategy could also be beneficial for the mesenteric circulation in cardiogenic shock, and consequently may improve the clinical outcome of patients with cardiogenic shock. Clinical trials are warranted to verify these hypotheses.

show abstract

Do All Nonsurvivors of Cardiogenic Shock Die With a Low Cardiac Index? *

Cited by 82 publications

References 19 publications

Insuficiência cardíaca grave em unidade de terapia intensiva: existe um índice prognóstico ideal?

Insuficiência cardíaca grave em unidade de terapia intensiva: existe um índice prognóstico ideal?

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cardiogenic shock and nutrition: safe?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About