Cargando…

The Stages of CS: Clinical and Translational Update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With improvements in cardiovascular care, and routine percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction, more patients are surviving following acute coronary syndromes. However, a minority of patients develop cardiogenic shock which results in approximately...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baran, David A., Long, Ashleigh, Jentzer, Jacob C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7665964/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33188491
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11897-020-00496-6
_version_ 1783610060905119744
author Baran, David A.
Long, Ashleigh
Jentzer, Jacob C.
author_facet Baran, David A.
Long, Ashleigh
Jentzer, Jacob C.
author_sort Baran, David A.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With improvements in cardiovascular care, and routine percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction, more patients are surviving following acute coronary syndromes. However, a minority of patients develop cardiogenic shock which results in approximately 50% 30-day mortality. There are various ways to classify cardiogenic shock, and much has been written about this topic in recent years. This review will examine recent developments and put them in context. RECENT FINDINGS: The large randomized trials of cardiogenic shock treatments such as the IABP-SHOCK II trial used a clinical definition of shock including hypotension (systolic blood pressure of 90 mmHg or less, or requirement of vasopressors to maintain such a blood pressure), as well as hypoperfusion. However, while this defines a minimum standard to define cardiogenic shock, it does not distinguish between a patient on a single vasoconstrictor and one who is on multiple high dose infusions or one on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The Society for Cardiac Angiography and Intervention recently published an expert consensus statement defining stages of cardiogenic shock, from at risk to beginning, classic, deteriorating, and extremis cardiogenic shock stages. The simple framework has been validated rapidly in multiple populations including the intensive care unit, a post-myocardial infarction population, an out of hospital cardiac arrest population, and most recently in a multicenter shock collaborative, SUMMARY: Classification is fundamental to understanding a disease state, and crafting solutions to improve outcomes. The last 20 years has witnessed an explosion of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices of increasing sophistication and capability, and yet there has been little progress in improving outcomes of cardiogenic shock. Hopefully, the next 20 years will see massive advances in understanding of the complexities of the various stages of cardiogenic shock. With such knowledge, it is likely that targeted treatments will be developed and the mortality of this disease will finally plummet.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7665964
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76659642020-11-16 The Stages of CS: Clinical and Translational Update Baran, David A. Long, Ashleigh Jentzer, Jacob C. Curr Heart Fail Rep Cardiogenic Shock: Progress in Mechanical Circulatory Support (E Rame, Section Editor) PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With improvements in cardiovascular care, and routine percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction, more patients are surviving following acute coronary syndromes. However, a minority of patients develop cardiogenic shock which results in approximately 50% 30-day mortality. There are various ways to classify cardiogenic shock, and much has been written about this topic in recent years. This review will examine recent developments and put them in context. RECENT FINDINGS: The large randomized trials of cardiogenic shock treatments such as the IABP-SHOCK II trial used a clinical definition of shock including hypotension (systolic blood pressure of 90 mmHg or less, or requirement of vasopressors to maintain such a blood pressure), as well as hypoperfusion. However, while this defines a minimum standard to define cardiogenic shock, it does not distinguish between a patient on a single vasoconstrictor and one who is on multiple high dose infusions or one on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The Society for Cardiac Angiography and Intervention recently published an expert consensus statement defining stages of cardiogenic shock, from at risk to beginning, classic, deteriorating, and extremis cardiogenic shock stages. The simple framework has been validated rapidly in multiple populations including the intensive care unit, a post-myocardial infarction population, an out of hospital cardiac arrest population, and most recently in a multicenter shock collaborative, SUMMARY: Classification is fundamental to understanding a disease state, and crafting solutions to improve outcomes. The last 20 years has witnessed an explosion of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices of increasing sophistication and capability, and yet there has been little progress in improving outcomes of cardiogenic shock. Hopefully, the next 20 years will see massive advances in understanding of the complexities of the various stages of cardiogenic shock. With such knowledge, it is likely that targeted treatments will be developed and the mortality of this disease will finally plummet. Springer US 2020-11-14 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7665964/ /pubmed/33188491 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11897-020-00496-6 Text en © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Cardiogenic Shock: Progress in Mechanical Circulatory Support (E Rame, Section Editor)
Baran, David A.
Long, Ashleigh
Jentzer, Jacob C.
The Stages of CS: Clinical and Translational Update
title The Stages of CS: Clinical and Translational Update
title_full The Stages of CS: Clinical and Translational Update
title_fullStr The Stages of CS: Clinical and Translational Update
title_full_unstemmed The Stages of CS: Clinical and Translational Update
title_short The Stages of CS: Clinical and Translational Update
title_sort stages of cs: clinical and translational update
topic Cardiogenic Shock: Progress in Mechanical Circulatory Support (E Rame, Section Editor)
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7665964/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33188491
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11897-020-00496-6
work_keys_str_mv AT barandavida thestagesofcsclinicalandtranslationalupdate
AT longashleigh thestagesofcsclinicalandtranslationalupdate
AT jentzerjacobc thestagesofcsclinicalandtranslationalupdate
AT barandavida stagesofcsclinicalandtranslationalupdate
AT longashleigh stagesofcsclinicalandtranslationalupdate
AT jentzerjacobc stagesofcsclinicalandtranslationalupdate