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

Prognostic Implications of Quantifying Vasoactive Medications in Cardiogenic Shock

None.

Cardiogenic Shock: An Overview

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex and dreadful condition for which effective treatments remain unclear. The concerningly high mortality rate of CS emphasizes a need for developing effective therapies to reduce its mortality and reverse its detrimental course. This article aims to provide an updated and evidence-based review of the pathophysiology of CS and the related pharmacotherapeutics with a special focus on vasoactive and inotropic agents.

The medical treatment of cardiogenic shock

Cardiogenic shock is characterized by tissue hypoperfusion due to the inadequate cardiac output to maintain the tissue oxygen demand. Despite some advances in cardiogenic shock management, extremely high mortality is still associated with this clinical syndrome. Its management is based on the immediate stabilization of hemodynamic parameters through medical care and the use of mechanical circulatory supports in specialized centers. This review aims to understand the cardiogenic shock current medical treatment, consisting mainly of inotropic drugs, vasopressors and coronary revascularization. In addition, we highlight the relevance of applying measures to other organ levels based on the optimization of mechanical ventilation and the appropriate initiation of renal replacement therapy.

The Management of Cardiogenic Shock From Diagnosis to Devices: A Narrative Review

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a heterogenous syndrome broadly characterized by inadequate cardiac output leading to tissue hypoperfusion and multisystem organ dysfunction that carries an ongoing high mortality burden. The management of CS has advanced rapidly, especially with the incorporation of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices. A thorough understanding of how to approach a patient with CS and to select appropriate monitoring and treatment paradigms is essential in modern ICUs. Timely characterization of CS severity and hemodynamics is necessary to optimize outcomes, and this may be performed best by multidisciplinary shock-focused teams. In this article, we provide a review of CS aimed to inform both the cardiology-trained and non-cardiology-trained intensivist provider. We briefly describe the causes, pathophysiologic features, diagnosis, and severity staging of CS, focusing on gathering key information that is necessary for making management decisions. We go on to provide a more detailed review of CS management principles and practical applications, with a focus on tMCS. Medical management focuses on appropriate medication therapy to optimize perfusion-by enhancing contractility and minimizing afterload-and to facilitate decongestion. For more severe CS, or for patients with decompensating hemodynamic status despite medical therapy, initiation of the appropriate tMCS increasingly is common. We discuss the most common devices currently used for patients with CS-phenotyping patients as having left ventricular failure, right ventricular failure, or biventricular failure-and highlight key available data and particular points of consideration that inform tMCS device selection. Finally, we highlight core components of sedation and respiratory failure management for patients with CS.

Treatment of Acute Kidney Injury: A Review of Current Approaches and Emerging Innovations

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a complex and life-threatening condition with multifactorial etiologies, ranging from ischemic injury to nephrotoxic exposures. Management is founded on treating the underlying cause of AKI, but supportive care-via fluid management, vasopressor therapy, kidney replacement therapy (KRT), and more-is also crucial. Blood pressure targets are often higher in AKI, and these can be achieved with fluids and vasopressors, some of which may be more kidney-protective than others. Initiation of KRT is controversial, and studies have not consistently demonstrated any benefit to early start dialysis. There are no targeted pharmacotherapies for AKI itself, but some do exist for complications of AKI; additionally, medications become a key aspect of AKI management because changes in renal function and dialysis support can lead to issues with both toxicities and underdosing. This review will cover existing literature on these and other aspects of AKI treatment. Additionally, this review aims to identify gaps and challenges and to offer recommendations for future research and clinical practice.

An Update on Pharmacologic Management of Neonatal Hypotension: When, Why, and Which Medication

Anti-hypotensive treatment, which includes dopamine, dobutamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, milrinone, vasopressin, terlipressin, levosimendan, and glucocorticoids, is a long-established intervention in neonates with arterial hypotension (AH). However, there are still gaps in knowledge and issues that need clarification. The main questions and challenges that neonatologists face relate to the reference ranges of arterial blood pressure in presumably healthy neonates in relation to gestational and postnatal age; the arterial blood pressure level that potentially affects perfusion of critical organs; the incorporation of targeted echocardiography and near-infrared spectroscopy for assessing heart function and cerebral perfusion in clinical practice; the indication, timing, and choice of medication for each individual patient; the limited randomized clinical trials in neonates with sometimes conflicting results; and the sparse data regarding the potential effect of early hypotension or anti-hypotensive medications on long-term neurodevelopment. In this review, after a short review of AH definitions used in neonates and existing data on pathophysiology of AH, we discuss currently available data on pharmacokinetic and hemodynamic effects, as well as the effectiveness and safety of anti-hypotensive medications in neonates. In addition, data on the comparisons between anti-hypotensive medications and current suggestions for the main indications of each medication are discussed.

Appropriateness of Fluid Therapy in Cardiogenic Shock Management: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence

Fluid therapy plays a pivotal role in maintaining tissue perfusion during the management of cardiogenic shock. Nevertheless, its application in this context is contentious, necessitating a balance between achieving adequate volume and avoiding fluid overload. This systematic review aimed to assess the outcomes of fluid therapy in cardiogenic shock. This review encompasses 11 studies involving 406 participants. Although some studies reported hemodynamic improvements following fluid administration, others presented contrasting findings. Studies that did not highlight the benefits of fluid therapy typically involved patients with unique comorbidities requiring specific etiology-based medical treatments. The most prevalent cause of cardiogenic shock, acute coronary syndrome, exhibited varying responses to fluid therapy based on the infarct location. In conclusion, fluid therapy plays a crucial role in cardiogenic shock management but necessitates integration into an appropriate treatment strategy, accounting for individual circumstances, comorbidities, and etiology. Further research is imperative to amass additional evidence regarding this issue.

Safety and Outcomes of Peripherally Administered Vasopressor Infusion in Patients Admitted with Shock to an Intensive Cardiac Care Unit-A Single-Center Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Vasopressors are frequently utilized for blood pressure stabilization in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), although with a questionable benefit. Obtaining central venous access is time consuming and may be associated with serious complications. Hence, we thought to evaluate whether the administration of vasopressors through a peripheral venous catheter (PVC) is a safe and effective alternative for the management of patients with CS presenting to the intensive cardiovascular care unit (ICCU).

METHODS

A prospective single-center study was conducted to compare the safety and outcomes of vasopressors administered via a PVC vs. a central venous catheter (CVC) in patients presenting with CS over a 12-month period.

RESULTS

A total of 1100 patients were included; of them, 139 (12.6%) required a vasopressor treatment due to shock, with 108 (78%) treated via a PVC and 31 (22%) treated via a CVC according to the discretion of the treating physician. The duration of the vasopressor administration was shorter in the PVC group compared with the CVC group (2.5 days vs. 4.2 days, respectively, p < 0.05). Phlebitis and the extravasation of vasopressors occurred at similar rates in the PVC and CVC groups (5.7% vs. 3.3%, respectively, p = 0.33; 0.9% vs. 3.3%, respectively, p = 0.17). Nevertheless, the bleeding rate was higher in the CVC group compared with the PVC group (3% vs. 0%, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of vasopressor infusions via PVC for the management of patients with CS is feasible and safe in patients with cardiogenic shock. Further studies are needed to establish this method of treatment.

Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) includes temporary and durable mechanical devices used for two sets of indications: 1. acute heart failure (HF) secondary sepsis, a myocardial infarction, or pulmonary emboli, and 2. for chronic end-stage HF secondary to worsening cardiomyopathy despite guideline driven medical treatment. This article is to aide cardiac intensive care unit (ICU) nurses in understanding the history of MCS therapy, the care of the MCS patient in the cardiac ICU, the critical and collaborative role of transplant teams with MCS therapy, educational needs for a successful discharge, and implications for education and shared decision-making when placing these devices.

A Comparison of Dobutamine, Norepinephrine, Vasopressin, and Hetastarch for the Treatment of Isoflurane-Induced Hypotension in Healthy, Normovolemic Dogs

Isoflurane is a commonly used inhalation anesthetic in species undergoing veterinary care that induces hypotension, impacting organ perfusion, making it imperative to minimize its occurrence or identify effective strategies for treating it. This study evaluated and compared the hemodynamic effects of DOB, NEP, VAS, and HES in twelve isoflurane-anesthetized Beagle dogs. The order of the first three treatments was randomized. HES was administered last. Data were collected before treatments (baseline) and after 10 min of a sustained MAP of <45 mmHg induced by a high end-tidal isoflurane concentration (T0). Once treatment was initiated and the target MAP was achieved (65 to 80 mmHg) or the maximum dose reached, data were collected after 15 min of stabilization (T1) and 15 min after (T2). A 15 min washout period with a MAP of ≥65 mmHg was allowed between treatments. The intravenous dosage regimens started and were increased by 50% every five minutes until the target MAP or maximum dose was reached. The dosages were as follows: DOB, 5-15 μg/kg/min; NEP, 0.1-2 μg/kg/min; VAS, 0.5-5 mU/kg/min; and HET, 6% 1-20 mL/kg/min. DOB improved CO, DO2, and VO2, but reduced SVR. VAS elevated SVR, but decreased CO, DO2, and VO2. HES minimally changed BP and mildly augmented CO, DO2, and VO2. These treatments failed to reach the target MAP. NEP increased the arterial BP, CO, MPAP, and PAWP, but reduced HR. Norepinephrine infusion at 0.44 ± 0.19 μg/kg/min was the most efficient therapy for correcting isoflurane-induced hypotension.

Hemodynamic and respiratory support in pulmonary embolism: a narrative review

Pulmonary embolism is a common and potentially fatal disease, with a significant burden on health and survival. Right ventricular dysfunction and hemodynamic instability are considered two key determinants of mortality in pulmonary embolism, which can reach up to 65% in severe cases. Therefore, timely diagnosis and management are of paramount importance to ensure the best quality of care. However, hemodynamic and respiratory support, both major constituents of management in pulmonary embolism, associated with cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest, have been given little attention in recent years, in favor of other novel advances such as systemic thrombolysis or direct oral anticoagulants. Moreover, it has been implied that current recommendations regarding this supportive care lack enough robustness, further complicating the problem. In this review, we critically discuss and summarize the current literature concerning the hemodynamic and respiratory support in pulmonary embolism, including fluid therapy, diuretics, pharmacological support with vasopressors, inotropes and vasodilators, oxygen therapy and ventilation, and mechanical circulatory support with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and right ventricular assist devices, while also providing some insights into contemporary research gaps.

Therapeutic Dilemmas in Mixed Septic-Cardiogenic Shock

Sepsis is an increasing cause of decompensation in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced or preserved ejection fraction. Sepsis and decompensated heart failure results in a mixed septic-cardiogenic shock that poses several therapeutic dilemmas: Rapid fluid resuscitation is the cornerstone of sepsis management, while loop diuretics are the main stay of decompensated heart failure treatment. Whether inotropic therapy with dobutamine or inodilators improves microvascular alterations remains unsettled in sepsis. When to resume loop diuretic therapy in patients with sepsis and decompensated heart failure is unclear. In the absence of relevant guidelines, we review vasopressor therapy, the timing and volume of fluid resuscitation, and the need for inotropic therapy in patients who, with sepsis and decompensated heart failure, present with a mixed septic-cardiogenic shock.

The Potential Synergistic Risk of Albuterol and Vasoactives in Acute Lung Injury Trials

Background:

Critically ill patients are often prescribed both inhaled beta-agonists and intravenous vasoactive; however, the interaction of the additive beta-agonist effects of these 2 agents remains largely uncharacterized.

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to evaluate how concomitant use of albuterol and vasoactive or inotropes affected ventilator-free days (VFDs) by re-analyzing the data from the Albuterol to Treat Acute Lung Injury (ALTA) trial.

Methods:

In this study, subjects were grouped to albuterol-vasoactive (n = 84) versus (vs) placebo-vasoactive (n = 62). Ventilator-free days, intensive care unit (ICU)-free days, organ failure-free days, cardiovascular adverse events, and 90-day mortality were compared. The primary outcome was VFDs.

Results:

Patients in the albuterol-vasoactive group had significantly fewer VFDs than patients in the placebo-vasoactive group (11 vs 19, P = 0.05). Patients in the albuterol-vasoactive group also had significantly fewer ICU-free days (9.5 vs 18.5, P = .006). The 90-day mortality was similar between groups (36.9% vs 27.4%, P = .20). Similarly, no significant difference in cardiac adverse events between the groups (14.3% vs 11.3%, P = 0.59).

Conclusion and Relevance:

This study has shown fewer VFDs for patients who received both vasoactive and albuterol. There were also fewer ICU-free days when compared to those on vasoactive only. Given the common use of both agents, a prospective evaluation of the additive adverse effects of beta-agonism is warranted.

Inotropic support in cardiogenic shock: who leads the battle, milrinone or dobutamine?

Cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of death globally, with acute myocardial infarction being one of the most frequent. One of the complications that can occur after a myocardial infarction is cardiogenic shock. At present, the evidence on the use of inotropic agents for the management of this complication is scarce, and only a few trials have evaluated the efficacy-adverse effects relationship of some agents. Milrinone and Dobutamine are some of the most frequently mentioned drugs that have been studied recently. However, there are still no data that affirm with certainty the supremacy of one over the other. The aim of this review is to synthesize evidence on basic and practical aspects of these agents, allowing us to conclude which might be more useful in current clinical practice, based on the emerging literature.

•

Studies suggest that Milrinone has a higher safety and efficacy profile over Dobutamine.

•

The evidence on the advantages of using Milrinone vs. Dobutamine is heterogeneous.

•

Additional factors need to be considered to reduce the risk of adverse events.