Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Treating
Cardiogenic
Shock
Martha Burk, MD, MS
BAMC/Wilford Hall/UTHSCSA
Combined Pulmonary Fellows
Conference
Cardiogenic Shock
Inadequate perfusion of tissue with
relatively decreased cardiac
dysfunction
Assessmen
Elevated JVP
Gallop
Edema
Ascites
t Rales
Hepatojugular reflux
Congestion at rest?
No Yes
Evidence of Low
Perfusion
No Warm and Warm and Wet
Narrow pulse pressure Dry
Pulsus paradoxus Low
Perfusion
Cool extremities
At Rest?
Altered mental status
Yes Cold and Dry Cold and Wet
Drug-related hypotension
Hyponatremia
Worsening renal function Nohria, et al JAMA 2002
Causes of Cardiogenic
Shock
Acute MI Myocarditis
– Pump failure Severe septic shock
Large infarction
Infarct expansion
LV outflow obstruction
Reinfarction – Aortic stenosis
– Hypertrophic LV
Mechanical
complications Valvular disease
– Acute MR/papillary – Mitral stenosis
muscle rupture – Left atrial myxoma
– Ventricular wall rupture Myocardial contusion
– Ventricular septal Hypothyroid state
defect
– Pericardial tamponade
Prolonged CABG
End-stage
Adapted from UpToDate and
cardiomyopathy Hollenberg, et al Ann Intern Med 1999
Epidemiology
Acute MI is most frequent cause
~10% AMI results in shock
SHOCK
– (Should we emergently revascularize
Occluded Coronaries for shocK) trial
registry
– 1160 pts with AMI and shock
75% with LV failure
8% had MR
5% had ventricular septal defect
3% had RV failure
2% had tamponade or cardiac rupture
8% had shock for other reasons
– Infarctions
55% anterior, 46% inferior
21% posterior, 50% multiple Hollenberg, et al Ann Intern Med 1999
Davies QJ Med 2001
Mortality
TRACE study
– Trandolapril Cardiac Evaluation protocol
– 6676 pts non-invasively managed for AMI
– 59% pts developed shock within 48 hrs
– 30 day and 6 year mortality
Without shock 9%/45%
With shock 62%/88%
Euro-Heart-Survey-ACS
– 10,136 patients presenting with ACS
– 549 had cardiogenic shock on presentation
– Mortality of pts presenting with/without shock
50%/3% with STEMI
53%/1% with NSTEMI
Lindholm, et al European Heart Journal 2003
Iakobishvili, et al American Heart Journal 200
Mortality In TRACE
↓ CO
↓ SV
↓Systemic Perfusion
Hypotension
↓ Coronary
Perfusion
Vasoconstriction Pressure
Fluid retention
Progressive
Ischemia Myocardial
Dysfunction
Death Hollenberg et al,
Annals of Internal Medicine
1999
Ischemic myocardium
Significant
Reperfusion
Cell death residual
stenosis
Inotropic Relief of
No return Ischemia
Of function Support
Return of
Myocardial function
Hollenberg et al,
Annals of Internal Medicine
Reperfusion Injury
Free radical production
Increased neutrophil adhesion
– Complement formation
Free fatty acid metabolism restored
– Further decreases intracellular pH
– Increased calcium influx due to Na-K exchange
– Class I – Class IV
No clinical heart failure Cardiogenic shock
< 5% mortality Stuporous
– Class II systolic BP < 90
decreased urine
Rales bilaterally in up to 50%
output
of lung fields
pulmonary edema
isolated S3
and cold clammy
good prognosis skin
– Class III mortality near 80%
Rales in all lung fields
acute mitral regurgitation
aggressive management
required www.ahcpub.com
Management Goals
Early recognition
Early reperfusion
Maintenance of adequate preload
Decreased afterload
Reperfusion
UpToDate
Importance of Position
UpToDate
Respiratory Variation With
PEEP
0 PEEP
15 PEEP
20
PEEP
UpToDate
AWP is a reliable indicator of LVEDP only when ventricular compliance is stable
UpToDate
PACs in High
Risk Surgical
Patients
1994 pts
– ≥60 years old
– Deemed ASA class III or IV risk
– Undergoing elective or urgent
major abdominal, thoracic,
vascular or hip frax surgery
and requiring intensive care
– Randomized to receive
treatment w/ or w/o PAC
guidance
Conclusion
– No benefit to therapy directed
by PAC versus standard care
Class III = Severe disease, but not incapacitating
Class IV = Severe disease that is a constant threat to life
NEJM 2003
Complications of PAC
Pneumothorax Catheter site
Hemothorax infection
Hematoma Thrombosis
Arrhythmias Infarction
Heart block Endocarditis
Arterial laceration Thrombocytopenia
Pulmonary artery
perforation
Valvular damage
Layon Chest 1999
Perioperative Use in Cardiac
Surgery
Conditions in which there is general agreement that RHC is warranted
NEJM 2002
Benefits of Thrombolysis in
AMI
8 p<0.0001 vs TIMI 2
6
3.7%
4
2
10 16 33 34 44 4 8 27 13 19 9 15 18 29 34
0
GUSTO 1
GUSTO 1
GUSTO 1
German
TAM I 1-7
Team 2
German
TAM I 1-7
Team 2
Team 2
TAM I 1-7
German
TIM I 1,4
TIM I 1,4
TIM I 1,4
5,10B
5,10B
5,10B