Review of Pathophysiology of Cardiogenic Shock and Escalation of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature..
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex clinical entity that continues to carry a high risk of mortality. The landscape of CS management has changed with the advent of several temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices designed to provide hemodynamic support. It remains challenging to understand the role of different temporary MCS devices in patients with CS, as many of these patients are critically ill, requiring complex care with multiple MCS device options. Each temporary MCS device can provide different types and levels of hemodynamic support. It is important to understand the risk/benefit profile of each one of them for appropriate device selection in patients with CS.
RECENT FINDINGS: MCS may be beneficial in CS patients through augmentation of cardiac output with subsequent improvement of systemic perfusion. Selecting the optimal MCS device depends on several variables including the underlying etiology of CS, clinical strategy of MCS use (bridge to recovery, bridge to transplant or durable MCS, or abridge to decision), amount of hemodynamic support needed, associated respiratory failure, and institutional preference. Furthermore, it is even more challenging to determine the appropriate time to escalate from one MCS device to another or combine different MCS devices. In this review, we discuss the current available data published in the literature on the management of CS and propose a standardized approach for escalation of MCS devices in patients with CS. Shock teams can play an important role to help in hemodynamic-guided management and algorithm-based step-by-step approach in early initiation and escalation of temporary MCS devices at different stages of CS. It is important to define the etiology of CS, and stage of shock and recognize univentricular vs biventricular shock for appropriate device selection and escalation of therapy.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2023 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2023 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:25 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Current cardiology reports - 25(2023), 4 vom: 27. Apr., Seite 213-227 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Pahuja, Mohit [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Cardiogenic shock |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 29.03.2023 Date Revised 27.07.2023 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1007/s11886-023-01843-4 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM353541087 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM353541087 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226060235.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s11886-023-01843-4 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1178.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM353541087 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)36847990 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Pahuja, Mohit |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Review of Pathophysiology of Cardiogenic Shock and Escalation of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 29.03.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 27.07.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature. | ||
| 520 | |a PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex clinical entity that continues to carry a high risk of mortality. The landscape of CS management has changed with the advent of several temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices designed to provide hemodynamic support. It remains challenging to understand the role of different temporary MCS devices in patients with CS, as many of these patients are critically ill, requiring complex care with multiple MCS device options. Each temporary MCS device can provide different types and levels of hemodynamic support. It is important to understand the risk/benefit profile of each one of them for appropriate device selection in patients with CS | ||
| 520 | |a RECENT FINDINGS: MCS may be beneficial in CS patients through augmentation of cardiac output with subsequent improvement of systemic perfusion. Selecting the optimal MCS device depends on several variables including the underlying etiology of CS, clinical strategy of MCS use (bridge to recovery, bridge to transplant or durable MCS, or abridge to decision), amount of hemodynamic support needed, associated respiratory failure, and institutional preference. Furthermore, it is even more challenging to determine the appropriate time to escalate from one MCS device to another or combine different MCS devices. In this review, we discuss the current available data published in the literature on the management of CS and propose a standardized approach for escalation of MCS devices in patients with CS. Shock teams can play an important role to help in hemodynamic-guided management and algorithm-based step-by-step approach in early initiation and escalation of temporary MCS devices at different stages of CS. It is important to define the etiology of CS, and stage of shock and recognize univentricular vs biventricular shock for appropriate device selection and escalation of therapy | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Cardiogenic shock | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Heart failure | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Hemodynamic support | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Mechanical circulatory support | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Shock team | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Yerasi, Charan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lam, Phillip H |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hashim, Hayder |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ben-Dor, Itsik |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bernardo, Nelson L |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Satler, Lowell F |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Sheikh, Farooq H |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Najjar, Samer S |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Molina, Ezequiel J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Waksman, Ron |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Current cardiology reports |d 1999 |g 25(2023), 4 vom: 27. Apr., Seite 213-227 |w (DE-627)NLM108756521 |x 1534-3170 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:25 |g year:2023 |g number:4 |g day:27 |g month:04 |g pages:213-227 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11886-023-01843-4 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 25 |j 2023 |e 4 |b 27 |c 04 |h 213-227 | ||