Cardiogenic shock

A Clinical Update on Vasoactive Medication in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock

This is a focused review looking at the pharmacological support in cardiogenic shock. There are a plethora of data evaluating vasopressors and inotropes in septic shock, but the data are limited for cardiogenic shock. This review article describes in detail the pathophysiology of cardiogenic shock, the mechanism of action of different vasopressors and inotropes emphasizing their indications and potential side effects. This review article incorporates the currently used specific risk-prediction models in cardiogenic shock as well as integrates data from many trials on the use of vasopressors and inotropes. Lastly, this review seeks to discuss the future direction for vasoactive medications in cardiogenic shock.

Extended Indications for Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Operating Room

Background:

The use of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) for cardiorespiratory support is increasing. Traditional absolute contraindications are currently deemed relative contraindications. Extracorporeal life support is now considered for a wider cohort of patients on a case-by-case basis.

Method:

We performed a review of the literature and examined current Extracorporeal Life Support Organization guidelines that support the use of ECLS in the operating room, based on the underlying pathology and surgical procedure proposed. We discuss specific surgical populations and different modes of ECLS and cannulation strategies.

Results:

Based on the available literature, veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can be used for the management of complex tracheobronchial and lung surgery, both in the elective and in the emergent setting. Elective veno-arterial (V-A) ECMO for cardiocirculatory support should be considered in high-risk patients undergoing ventricular tachycardia ablation. Extracorporeal life support should be considered as a potential life-saving intervention in almost all parturients with severe respiratory failure or refractory cardiogenic shock. V-A ECMO should be considered in unanticipated intraoperative cardiac arrest in patients without preexisting end-organ failure.

Conclusion:

As the number of indications for ECLS in the operating room is growing, anesthesiology and surgical staff should become familiar with the perioperative management of patients on ECLS.

First experiences with a combined usage of veno-arterial and veno-venous ECMO in therapy-refractory cardiogenic shock patients with cerebral hypoxemia

The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is becoming a popular tool in the treatment of cardiogenic shock. We present two case reports where classical veno-arterial peripherally cannulated ECMO therapy proved insufficient with profuse cerebral hypoxemia. After augmenting the setting into veno-veno-arterial ECMO, we achieved a remarkable improvement of all oxygenation parameters. The simultaneous use of veno-venous and veno-arterial ECMO might display as a novel strategy to counteract the coronary and cerebral hypoxemia in veno-arterial ECMO therapy in patients with therapy-refractory cardiogenic shock or in combined cardiopulmonary failure. In this manuscript, the veno-veno-arterial ECMO setup is described in full detail and different venous cannulas are discussed.

Early revascularization is beneficial across all ages and a wide spectrum of cardiogenic shock severity: A pooled analysis of trials

BACKGROUND

A pooled analysis in cardiogenic shock due to acute coronary syndromes is desirable to assess the effect of early revascularization (ERV) across all ages and a wide spectrum of disease severity.

METHODS

Only two randomized controlled trials (RCT), i.e. SMASH and SHOCK, met the inclusion criteria and were combined for a pooled analysis using individual patient data (n = 348).

RESULTS

SMASH patients (n = 54, 16%) had more severe disease than SHOCK patients (n = 294, 84%). After adjustment for age, anoxic brain damage, non-inferior myocardial infarction, prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery, renal failure, systolic blood pressure, and selection for coronary angiography, one-year mortality was similar (relative risk SHOCK versus SMASH 0.87, 95% CI: 0.61-1.25). Relative risk of one-year death for ERV versus initial medical stabilization was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.70-0.96). There was no significant difference in the treatment effect by age (≤75 years relative risk at one year 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63-0.99; > 75 years relative risk at one year 0.93, 95% CI: 0.56-1.53; interaction P = 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Only two RCT have been published emphasizing the difficulty of enrolling critically ill patients. Despite large differences in shock severity, ERV benefit is similar across all ages and not significantly different for the elderly.

Early extracorporeal membrane oxygenator-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention improved 30-day clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated with profound cardiogenic shock

OBJECTIVES

This study tested the hypothesis that early extracorporeal membrane oxygenator offered additional benefits in improving 30-day outcomes in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated with profound cardiogenic shock undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS

Between May 1993 and July 2002, 920 patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Of these patients, 12.5% (115) with cardiogenic shock were enrolled in this study (group 1). Between August 2002 and December 2009, 1650 patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Of these patients, 13.3% (219) complicated with cardiogenic shock were enrolled (group 2).

RESULTS

The incidence of profound shock (defined as systolic blood pressure remaining < or =75 mm Hg after intra-aortic balloon pump and inotropic agent supports) was similar in both groups (21.7% vs. 21.0%, p > .5). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenator support, which was available only for patients in group 2, was performed in the catheterization room. The results demonstrated that final thrombolysis in myocardial infarction grade 3 flow in infarct-related artery was similar between the two groups (p = .678). However, total 30-day mortality and the mortality of patients with profound shock were lower in group 2 than in group 1 (all p < .04). Additionally, the hospital survival time was remarkably longer in patients in group 2 than in patients in group 1 (p = .0005). Furthermore, multivariate analysis demonstrated that unsuccessful reperfusion, presence of advanced congestive heart failure, profound shock, and age were independent predictors of 30-day mortality (all p < .02).

CONCLUSION

Early extracorporeal membrane oxygenator-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention improved 30-day outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with complicated with profound cardiogenic shock.

[Therapy of cardiogenic shock after myocardial infarction]

The therapy of infarct related cardiogenic shock should primarily focus on fastest possible revascularization. In addition, rapid restoration of sufficient organ perfusion pressure is recommended for the prevention of a multi-organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS). This can be achieved by mechanical circulatory assist devices as well as individual catecholamine therapy. Since assist devices require specially trained physicians, their use is limited to specialized cardiac care centers. However, future technologies such as portable heart-lung-machines may help to further improve transfer to specialized centers and therapy of shock patients.