Cardiogenic shock in patients with acute coronary syndromes

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holger Thiele ◽  
Uwe Zeymer
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Intensive Care Treatment ◽  
Post Discharge ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Coronary Syndromes

Cardiogenic shock complicating an acute coronary syndrome is observed in up to 10% of patients and is associated with high mortality still approaching 50%. The extent of ischaemic myocardium has a profound impact on the initial, in-hospital, and post-discharge management and prognosis of the cardiogenic shock patient. Careful risk assessment for each patient, based on clinical criteria, is mandatory, to decide appropriately regarding revascularization by primary percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting, drug treatment by inotropes and vasopressors, mechanical left ventricular support, additional intensive care treatment, triage among alternative hospital care levels, and allocation of clinical resources. This chapter will outline the underlying causes and diagnostic criteria, pathophysiology, and treatment of cardiogenic shock complicating acute coronary syndromes, including mechanical complications and shock from right heart failure. There will be a major focus on potential therapeutic issues from an interventional cardiologist’s and an intensive care physician’s perspective on the advancement of new therapeutical arsenals, both mechanical percutaneous circulatory support and pharmacological support. Since studying the cardiogenic shock population in randomized trials remains challenging, this chapter will also touch upon the specific challenges encountered in previous clinical trials and the implications for future perspectives in cardiogenic shock.

Cardiogenic shock in patients with acute coronary syndromes

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holger Thiele ◽  
Uwe Zeymer
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Intensive Care Treatment ◽  
Post Discharge ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Coronary Syndromes

Cardiogenic shock complicating an acute coronary syndrome is observed in up to 10% of patients and is associated with high mortality still approaching 50%. The extent of ischaemic myocardium has a profound impact on the initial, in-hospital, and post-discharge management and prognosis of the cardiogenic shock patient. Careful risk assessment for each patient, based on clinical criteria, is mandatory, to decide appropriately regarding revascularization by primary percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting, drug treatment by inotropes and vasopressors, mechanical left ventricular support, additional intensive care treatment, triage among alternative hospital care levels, and allocation of clinical resources. This chapter will outline the underlying causes and diagnostic criteria, pathophysiology, and treatment of cardiogenic shock complicating acute coronary syndromes, including mechanical complications and shock from right heart failure. There will be a major focus on potential therapeutic issues from an interventional cardiologist’s and an intensive care physician’s perspective on the advancement of new therapeutical arsenals, both mechanical percutaneous circulatory support and pharmacological support. Since studying the cardiogenic shock population in randomized trials remains challenging, this chapter will also touch upon the specific challenges encountered in previous clinical trials and the implications for future perspectives in cardiogenic shock.

Cardiogenic shock in patients with acute coronary syndromes

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holger Thiele ◽  
Uwe Zeymer
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Intensive Care Treatment ◽  
Post Discharge ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Coronary Syndromes

Cardiogenic shock complicating an acute coronary syndrome is observed in up to 10% of patients and is associated with high mortality still approaching 50%. The extent of ischaemic myocardium has a profound impact on the initial, in-hospital, and post-discharge management and prognosis of the cardiogenic shock patient. Careful risk assessment for each patient, based on clinical criteria, is mandatory, to decide appropriately regarding revascularization by primary percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting, drug treatment by inotropes and vasopressors, mechanical left ventricular support, additional intensive care treatment, triage among alternative hospital care levels, and allocation of clinical resources. This chapter will outline the underlying causes and diagnostic criteria, pathophysiology, and treatment of cardiogenic shock complicating acute coronary syndromes, including mechanical complications and shock from right heart failure. There will be a major focus on potential therapeutic issues from an interventional cardiologist’s and an intensive care physician’s perspective on the advancement of new therapeutical arsenals, both mechanical percutaneous circulatory support and pharmacological support. Since studying the cardiogenic shock population in randomized trials remains challenging, this chapter will also touch upon the specific challenges encountered in previous clinical trials and the implications for future perspectives in cardiogenic shock.

Cardiogenic shock in patients with acute coronary syndromes

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holger Thiele ◽  
Uwe Zeymer
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Intensive Care Treatment ◽  
Post Discharge ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Coronary Syndromes

Cardiogenic shock complicating an acute coronary syndrome is observed in up to 10% of patients and is associated with high mortality still approaching 50%. The extent of ischaemic myocardium has a profound impact on the initial, in-hospital, and post-discharge management and prognosis of the cardiogenic shock patient. Careful risk assessment for each patient, based on clinical criteria, is mandatory, to decide appropriately regarding revascularization by primary percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting, drug treatment by inotropes and vasopressors, mechanical left ventricular support, additional intensive care treatment, triage among alternative hospital care levels, and allocation of clinical resources. This chapter will outline the underlying causes and diagnostic criteria, pathophysiology, and treatment of cardiogenic shock complicating acute coronary syndromes, including mechanical complications and shock from right heart failure. There will be a major focus on potential therapeutic issues from an interventional cardiologist’s and an intensive care physician’s perspective on the advancement of new therapeutical arsenals, both mechanical percutaneous circulatory support and pharmacological support. Since studying the cardiogenic shock population in randomized trials remains challenging, this chapter will also touch upon the specific challenges encountered in previous clinical trials and the implications for future perspectives in cardiogenic shock.

Low cardiac output states and cardiogenic shock

2021 ◽  
pp. 633-650
Author(s):  
Holger Thiele ◽  
Suzanne de Waha-Thiele
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Output ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Intensive Care Treatment ◽  
Low Cardiac Output ◽  
Clinical Criteria ◽  
Coronary Syndromes

Low cardiac output and cardiogenic shock are associated with high mortality. Among the multiple heterogeneous reasons for low cardiac output and cardiogenic shock acute coronary syndromes are the most frequent cause. Mortality is still approaching 50%. The extent of ischaemic myocardium has a profound impact on the initial, in-hospital, and post-discharge management and prognosis of the cardiogenic shock patient. Careful risk assessment for each patient, based on clinical criteria, is mandatory, to decide appropriately regarding revascularization by primary percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting, drug treatment by inotropes and vasopressors, mechanical circulatory support, additional intensive care treatment, triage among alternative hospital care levels, and allocation of clinical resources. This chapter will outline the underlying causes and diagnostic criteria, pathophysiology, and treatment of cardiogenic shock focussing on acute coronary syndromes, including mechanical complications and shock from right ventricular failure. There will be a major focus on potential therapeutic issues from an interventional cardiologist's and also an intensive care physician's perspective on the advancement of new therapeutical arsenals, both percutaneous mechanical circulatory support and pharmacological support. Since studying the cardiogenic shock population in randomized trials remains challenging, this chapter will also touch upon the specific challenges encountered in previous clinical trials and the implications for future perspectives in cardiogenic shock.

scholarly journals Rapid Classification and Treatment Algorithm of Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Coronary Syndromes: The SAVE ACS Classification

2022 ◽  
Vol 2022 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Vasileios Panoulas ◽  
Charles Ilsley
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Validation Cohort ◽  
Conditional Logistic Regression ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Arterial Blood ◽  
Coronary Syndromes

Introduction. We aimed to identify the independent “frontline” predictors of 30-day mortality in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and propose a rapid cardiogenic shock (CS) classification and management pathway. Materials and Methods. From 2011 to 2019, a total of 11439 incident ACS patients were treated in our institution. Forward conditional logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the “frontline” predictors of 30 day mortality. The C-statistic assessed the discriminatory power of the model. As a validation cohort, we used 431 incident ACS patients admitted from January 1, 2020, to July 20, 2020. Results. Independent predictors of 30-day mortality included age (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.07, p < 0.001 ), intubation (OR 7.4; 95% CI 4.3 to 12.74, p < 0.001 ), LV systolic impairment (OR severe_vs_normal 1.98; 95% CI 1.14 to 3.42, p = 0.015 , OR moderate_vs_normal 1.84; 95% CI 1.09 to 3.1, p = 0.022 ), serum lactate (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.41, p < 0.001 ), base excess (OR 1.1; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.07, p < 0.001 ), and systolic blood pressure (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.982 to 0.999, p = 0.024 ). The model discrimination was excellent with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.879 (0.851 to 0.908) ( p < 0.001 ). Based on these predictors, we created the SAVE (SBP, Arterial blood gas, and left Ventricular Ejection fraction) ACS classification, which showed good discrimination for 30-day AUC 0.814 (0.782 to 0.845) and long-term mortality p log − rank < 0.001 . A similar AUC was demonstrated in the validation cohort (AUC 0.815). Conclusions. In the current study, we introduce a rapid way of classifying CS using frontline parameters. The SAVE ACS classification could allow for future randomized studies to explore the benefit of mechanical circulatory support in different CS stages in ACS patients.

scholarly journals Cardiogenic shock associated with acute coronary syndrome: the current state of the problem of diagnostics and intensive care. Article

2020 ◽  
pp. 73-85
Author(s):  
E. V Grigoryev ◽  
A. E Bautin ◽  
M. Yu Kirov ◽  
D. L Shukevich ◽  
R. A Kornelyuk
Keyword(s):  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Contractile Activity ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Current State ◽  
Myocardial Contractile ◽  
Postcardiotomy Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock is a syndrome of critical hypoperfusion associated with a fatal decrease in myocardial contractile activity. Phenotypically cardiogenic shock is most frequently based on acute coronary syndrome, less often - on postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock and shock due to sepsis. Despite successes in the development of intensive care methods, cardiogenic shock is still accompanied by high mortality. Updating the data on the diagnosis and intensive care of this condition is a necessary condition for improving the quality of medical care. The present work describes modern definitions and ideas about the pathogenesis of cardiogenic shock, as well as the phase concept of intensive care, the role of endovascular revascularization and methods of mechanical circulatory support. The review is emphasized on cardiogenic shock in acute coronary syndrome.

Abstract 11816: Combined Use of VA-ECMO and IMPELLA (ECPELLA) Reduces Myocardial Damage and Mortality in Lethal Cardiogenic Shock Patients Due to Acute Coronary Syndrome

Circulation ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 144 (Suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Takashi Unoki ◽  
Motoko Kametani ◽  
Takaaki Toyofuku ◽  
Yutaka Konami ◽  
Hiroto Suzuyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Myocardial Damage ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Coronary Risk Factors ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Va Ecmo

Background: Short-term mortality of lethal cardiogenic shock (CS) patients due to acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains to be improved. The veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has been applied as the effective lifesaving modality for CS patients. While VA-ECMO maintains end-organ perfusion, it increases the damaged left ventricular (LV) afterload. Combined treatment of VA-ECMO and a micro-axial Impella pump, ECPELLA, simultaneously provides the systemic circulatory support and LV unloading. However, it remains unknown whether LV unloading effect by ECPELLA can reduce the myocardial damage and the mortality. Purpose: This study was to assess whether ECPELLA reduces myocardial damage and improves the mortality of CS patients due to ACS. Methods: From January 2012 to May 2021, 66 consecutive patients with lethal CS (SCAI stage-E) due to ACS were enrolled. All patients received VA-ECMO support prior to or after the percutaneous coronary intervention. Among them, 34 patients received ECPELLA and 32 patients received VA-ECMO + IABP. We assessed serum CK-MB levels and the cumulative 30-day mortality. Results: There were no significant difference in age, rate of male sex, coronary risk factors, ST elevated ACS, left main trunk (LMT) lesion, and the time from onset to reperfusion between two treatment groups. The ECPELLA group had significantly lower peak CK-MB and lower 30-day all-cause mortality compared to the VA-ECMO + IABP group [Peak CPK level: median (IQR); 295 (92-507) vs.580 (219-1090): p=0.002, the 30-day mortality rate: 50% vs. 76%: p=0.02, respectively]. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis including age, the time form onset to reperfusion, LMT lesion, E-CPR, and ECPELLA revealed that the ECPELLA (HR: 0.30 95% confidence interval:0.13-0.64; p=0.002) was independently associated with the 30-day all-cause mortality. Conclusion: Results suggest that the ECPELLA reduces the myocardial damage shown by peak CK-MB and improves the 30-day mortality.

scholarly journals 348 Uric acid is associated with acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock at presentation in acute coronary syndrome patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_G) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Maloberti ◽  
Paola Rebora ◽  
Marco Centola ◽  
Nuccia Morici ◽  
Alice Sacco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Uric Acid ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Coronary Syndromes

Abstract Aims we focused on the role of Uric Acid (UA) as a possible determinant of Heart Failure (HF) related issues in Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS) patients. Main outcome were acute HF and cardiogenic shock at admission, secondary outcomes were the need of Non Invasive Ventilation (NIV) use and the admission Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF). Methods and results we consecutively enrolled 1269 ACS patients admitted to the cardiological Intensive Care Unit of the Niguarda and San Paolo hospitals (Milan, Italy) from June 2016 to June 2019. Hyperuricaemia was defined as a value higher than 6 mg/dl for females and 7 mg/dl for males. All the evaluated outcomes occurred more frequently in the hyperuricemic subjects (n = 292): acute HF 35.8 vs. 11.1% (P &lt; 0.0001), cardiogenic shock 10 vs. 3.1% (P &lt; 0.0001), NIV 24.1 vs. 5.1% (P &lt; 0.0001) with lower admission LVEF (42.9 ± 12.8 vs. 49.6 ± 9.9, P &lt; 0.0001). By multivariable analyses, UA was confirmed to be significantly associated with all the outcomes with the following odds ratio (OR): acute HF OR = 1.119; 95% CI: 1.019–1.229; cardiogenic shock OR = 1.157; 95% CI: 1.001–1.337; NIV use OR = 1.208; 95% CI: 1.078–1.354; LVEF β = −0.999; 95% CI: −1.413 to − 0.586. Conclusions The main result of our study was the finding of a significant association between UA and acute HF, cardiogenic shock, NIV use and LVEF. Due to the cross-sectional nature of our study no definite answer on the direction of these relationship can be drawn and further longitudinal study on UA changes over time during an ACS hospitalization are needed.

Acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock in patient with COVID-19

Kardiologiia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 61 (11) ◽  
pp. 104-107
Author(s):  
Yu. A. Schneider ◽  
V. G. Tsoi ◽  
M. S. Fomenko ◽  
P. A. Shilenko ◽  
I. I. Dimitrova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Intensive Therapy ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Coronary Syndrome

The conditions of the pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) are associated with overloading intensive care units, conversion of hospitals, and changes in routing of patients with acute cardiovascular pathology. At the same time, medical practice is still challenged to provide medical care to patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Patients with COVID-19 and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are at a higher risk of death while the incidence of this combination of diseases will be growing. This article describes a case of diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 in a 69-year-old patient who was urgently hospitalized with cardiogenic shock associated with ACS, electrocardiographic signs of complete left bundle branch block, and left ventricular ejection fraction of 19 %. Coronary angiography with stenting was successfully performed in the conditions of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The patient received long-term intensive therapy in the intensive care unit followed by symptomatic treatment in the cardiac surgery unit. The patient’s condition gradually improved and he was discharged from the hospital on the 56th day. The strategy of intensive care and active follow-up helped saving life of the patient with COVID-19 and AMI.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document