Literature DB >> 30197209

Advancing from a "hemodynamic model" to a "mechanistic disease-modifying model" of cardiogenic shock.

Patrick R Lawler1, Mandeep R Mehra2.   

Abstract

Emerging clinical evidence has suggested that short-term mechanical augmentation of cardiac output (CO) may not consistently improve mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), despite improvements in hemodynamics. Such failures could reflect the underlying complexity of the mechanisms that contribute to malperfusion and organ dysfunction in CS. Distinct molecular and physiologic shock endophenotypes likely exist among patients with CS, with hemodynamic aberrations as the inciting insult but not necessarily the primary drivers of clinical outcomes. We propose that building a framework that moves away from the current "hemodynamic model" in preference for a "mechanistic disease-modifying model" of CS may facilitate progress toward reducing the stagnant mortality rates in this population. Such a therapeutic paradigm shift in patients with chronic systolic heart failure-the shift away from strategies that augment CO to those that modulate the systemic responses to low CO-has been one of the single most important shifts in contemporary cardiovascular medicine.
Copyright © 2018 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cardiac output; cardiogenic shock; mechanical circulatory support; systemic response; temporary ventricular assist device

Year:  2018        PMID: 30197209     DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2018.07.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Heart Lung Transplant        ISSN: 1053-2498            Impact factor:   10.247


  7 in total

1.  Machine learning approaches to the human metabolome in sepsis identify metabolic links with survival.

Authors:  Leah B Kosyakovsky; Emily Somerset; Angela J Rogers; Michael Sklar; Jared R Mayers; Augustin Toma; Yishay Szekely; Sabri Soussi; Bo Wang; Chun-Po S Fan; Rebecca M Baron; Patrick R Lawler
Journal:  Intensive Care Med Exp       Date:  2022-06-17

2.  A longitudinal study highlights shared aspects of the transcriptomic response to cardiogenic and septic shock.

Authors:  Daniele Braga; Matteo Barcella; Antoine Herpain; Federico Aletti; Erik B Kistler; Bernardo Bollen Pinto; Karim Bendjelid; Cristina Barlassina
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 3.  The Stages of CS: Clinical and Translational Update.

Authors:  David A Baran; Ashleigh Long; Jacob C Jentzer
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2020-11-14

Review 4.  Cardiogenic shock teams and centres: a contemporary review of multidisciplinary care for cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  Nima Moghaddam; Sean van Diepen; Derek So; Patrick R Lawler; Christopher B Fordyce
Journal:  ESC Heart Fail       Date:  2021-01-16

5.  Is There an Obesity Paradox in Cardiogenic Shock?

Authors:  Carl J Lavie; Adrian daSilva-deAbreu; Hector O Ventura; Mandeep R Mehra
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2022-06-06       Impact factor: 6.106

6.  Predicting survival in patients with acute decompensated heart failure complicated by cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  Nuccia Morici; Giovanna Viola; Laura Antolini; Gianfranco Alicandro; Michela Dal Martello; Alice Sacco; Maurizio Bottiroli; Federico Pappalardo; Luca Villanova; Laura De Ponti; Carlo La Vecchia; Maria Frigerio; Fabrizio Oliva; Justin Fried; Paolo Colombo; Arthur Reshad Garan
Journal:  Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc       Date:  2021-06-04

7.  Mechanical circulatory support in CS: device or patient?

Authors:  Nuccia Morici; Guido Tavazzi
Journal:  Open Heart       Date:  2021-07
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.