Inotrope versus placebo therapy in cardiogenic shock: Rationale and study design of the CAPITAL DOREMI2 trial

Parlow, Simon; Santo, Pietro Di; Sterling, Lee H.; Goodliffe, Laura; Motazedian, Pouya; Prosperi-Porta, Graeme; Morgan, Baylie; Koopman, Zandra; Jung, Richard G.; Lepage-Ratte, Melissa Fay; Robinson, Lisa J.; Feagan, Hannah; Simard, Trevor; Wells, George; Kyeremanteng, Kwadwo; Ainsworth, Craig; Amin, Fakhra; Marbach, Jeffrey A.; Fernando, Shannon M.; Labinaz, Marino; Belley‐Côté, Emilie P.; Hibbert, Benjamin; Mathew, Rebecca

doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2023.04.010

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With levosimendan, the situation is similar. In fact, although current guidelines recommend inotrope therapy in patients with CS, no robust data support their use [2]. A recent meta-analysis found that, in patients receiving veno-arterial ECMO, levosimendan seemed to raise the weaning success rate and reduce mortality [24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Survey on Cardiogenic Shock and the Use of ECMO and Impella in Spanish Cardiac Critical Care Units

Martínez-Sellés,

García Carreño,

Martínez-Solano

et al. 2023

JVD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Previous studies suggest variability in the management of cardiogenic shock (CS). Methods: An anonymous survey was sent to Spanish hospitals. Results: We obtained 50 answers, mainly from cardiologists (36–72%). The annual average of ECMOs is 16.7 ± 11.3 applications in CS patients and of Impellas is 8.7 ± 8.3 applications in CS patients. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation is used in the majority of CS ECMOs (31–62%), and Impella is used in 7 (14%). In 36 (72%) cases, ECMO is used as a treatment for cardiac arrest. In 10 cases, ECMO removal is percutaneous (20%). In 25 (50%) cases, age is a relative contraindication; 17 have a mobile ECMO team (34%); and 23 (46%) have received ECMO patients from other centers in the last year. Pre-purged ECMO is only used in 16 (32%). ECMO implantation is carried out under ultrasound guidance in 31 (62%), only with angiography in 3 (6%) and with both in 11 (22%). The Swan–Ganz catheter is used routinely in 8 (16%), only in doubtful cases in 24 (48%), and in most cases in 8 (16%). The ECMO awake strategy is used little or not at all in 28 (56%), in selected cases in 17 (34%), and routinely in 5 (10%). Conclusion: Our study shows a huge variation in the management of patients with CS.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The scarce evidence obtained with randomized clinical trials in this setting might explain inter-center variation in the management of patients with CS. Current guidelines recommend consideration of inotrope therapy in patients with CS; however, no robust data support their use [2]. In the case of MCS, the evidence is also scarce [3,4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survey on Cardiogenic Shock and the Use of ECMO and Impella in Spanish Cardiac Critical Care Units

Martínez-Sellés,

García Carreño,

Martínez-Solano

et al. 2023

JVD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most recent guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology emphasize this concept by assigning to pVAD the highest class of recommendation (as compared with inotropes) as a first-line strategy in CS management (IIa vs. IIb). 4 Thus, the paradigm is shifting towards an inotrope-free strategy for CS management, while awaiting clinical trials to explore this field. 5 …”

Section: Does a Role For Inotropes Still Exist In Cardiogenic Shock?mentioning

confidence: 99%

From medical therapy to mechanical support: strategies for device selection and implantation techniques

Bertoldi,

Montisci,

Westermann

et al. 2023

European Heart Journal Supplements

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex clinical syndrome with a high risk of mortality. The recent, rapid development of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) has altered CS treatment. While catecholamines remain the cornerstone of CS therapy, tMCS usage has increased. According to shock severity, different treatment strategies including catecholamines alone, catecholamines and tMCS, or multiple tMCS might be used. State-of-the-art implantation techniques are necessary to avoid complications linked to the invasive nature of tMCS. In particular, bleeding and access-site complications might counteract the potential haemodynamic benefit of a percutaneous ventricular assist device. In this review, we describe the role of catecholamines in CS treatment and present the different tMCS devices with an explanation on how to use them according to CS aetiology and severity. Finally, an overview of the best practice for device implantation is provided.

show abstract

Goal-Directed Therapy in Cardiogenic Shock: No Magical Recipe

Lescroart,

Piccoli,

Hébert

et al. 2023

Curr Anesthesiol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inotrope versus placebo therapy in cardiogenic shock: Rationale and study design of the CAPITAL DOREMI2 trial

Cited by 4 publications

References 26 publications

Survey on Cardiogenic Shock and the Use of ECMO and Impella in Spanish Cardiac Critical Care Units

Survey on Cardiogenic Shock and the Use of ECMO and Impella in Spanish Cardiac Critical Care Units

From medical therapy to mechanical support: strategies for device selection and implantation techniques

Goal-Directed Therapy in Cardiogenic Shock: No Magical Recipe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About