scholarly journals Lingua Franca of Cardiogenic Shock: Speaking the Same Language

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashleigh Long ◽  
David A. Baran
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Clinical Problem ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Progressive Development ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices ◽  
Support Devices

Cardiogenic shock has remained a vexing clinical problem over the last 20 years despite progressive development of increasingly capable percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices. It is increasingly clear that the published trials of various percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices have compared heterogenous populations of cardiogenic shock patients, and therefore have not yielded a single result where one approach improved survival. To classify patients, various risk scores such as the CARDSHOCK and IABP-Shock-II scores have been developed and validated but they have not been broadly applied. The Society for Cardiac Angiography and Intervention Expert Consensus on Classification of Cardiogenic Shock has been widely studied since its publication in 2019, and is reviewed at length. In particular, there have been numerous validation studies done and these are reviewed. Finally, the directions for future research are reviewed.

scholarly journals Describing and Classifying Shock: Recent Insights

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashleigh Long ◽  
Amin Yehya ◽  
Kelly Stelling ◽  
David A Baran
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Use Of Resources ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices ◽  
Daunting Challenge ◽  
Available Information ◽  
Support Devices

Cardiogenic shock continues to present a daunting challenge to clinicians, despite an increasing array of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices. Mortality for cardiogenic shock has not changed meaningfully in more than 20 years. There have been many attempts to generate risk scores or frameworks to evaluate cardiogenic shock and optimize the use of resources and assist with prognostication. These include the Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock (IABP-SHOCK) II risk score, the CardShock score and the new CLIP biomarker score. This article reviews the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) classification of cardiogenic shock and subsequent validation studies. The SCAI classification is simple for clinicians to use as it is based on readily available information and can be adapted depending on the data set that can be accessed. The authors consider the future of the field. Underlying all these efforts is the hope that a better understanding and classification of shock will lead to meaningful improvements in mortality rates.

Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices Use in Cardiogenic Shock and High-Risk Percutaneous Intervention.

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (08) ◽  
pp. 5578-5583
Author(s):  
Usman Sarwar ◽  
Nikky Bardia ◽  
Amod Amritphale ◽  
Hassan Tahir ◽  
MD Ghulam M.Awan
Keyword(s):  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Percutaneous Intervention ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices ◽  
Support Devices

Statistical data has shown that patients now treated in cardiac catheterization laboratories are older with several comorbidities, including renal failure, diabetes, and heart failure [1]. In past patients who were not suitable candidates for percutaneous coronary intervention due to their numerous comorbidities now seems to be a suitable candidate due to tremendous advancements in the field of interventional cardiology like new stent design and availability of advance mechanical circulatory support devices, i.e., Impella performing PCI on these high-risk patients become a viable option. There are two areas of cardiology in which mechanical circulatory support devices keep evolving: one is high-risk (percutaneous coronary intervention) PCI, and the other is a cardiogenic shock that is refractory to initial pressor support.  In this article, we review evidence base data regarding the use of mechanical circulatory support devices in high-risk percutaneous intervention and cardiogenic shock.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document