Literature DB >> 30947919

Standardized Team-Based Care for Cardiogenic Shock.

Behnam N Tehrani1, Alexander G Truesdell2, Matthew W Sherwood3, Shashank Desai3, Henry A Tran3, Kelly C Epps3, Ramesh Singh3, Mitchell Psotka3, Palak Shah3, Lauren B Cooper3, Carolyn Rosner3, Anika Raja3, Scott D Barnett3, Patricia Saulino3, Christopher R deFilippi3, Paul A Gurbel3, Charles E Murphy3, Christopher M O'Connor4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a multifactorial, hemodynamically complex syndrome associated with high mortality. Despite advances in reperfusion and mechanical circulatory support, management remains highly variable and outcomes poor.
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated whether a standardized team-based approach can improve outcomes in CS and whether a risk score can guide clinical decision making.
METHODS: A total of 204 consecutive patients with CS were identified. CS etiology, patient demographic characteristics, right heart catheterization, mechanical circulatory support use, and survival were determined. Cardiac power output (CPO) and pulmonary arterial pulsatility index (PAPi) were measured at baseline and 24 h after the CS diagnosis. Thresholds at 24 h for lactate (<3.0 mg/dl), CPO (>0.6 W), and PAPi (>1.0) were determined. Using logistic regression analysis, a validated risk stratification score was developed.
RESULTS: Compared with 30-day survival of 47% in 2016, 30-day survival in 2017 and 2018 increased to 57.9% and 76.6%, respectively (p < 0.01). Independent predictors of 30-day mortality were age ≥71 years, diabetes mellitus, dialysis, ≥36 h of vasopressor use at time of diagnosis, lactate levels ≥3.0 mg/dl, CPO <0.6 W, and PAPi <1.0 at 24 h after diagnosis and implementation of therapies. Either 1 or 2 points were assigned to each variable, and a 3-category risk score was determined: 0 to 1 (low), 2 to 4 (moderate), and ≥5 (high).
CONCLUSIONS: This observational study suggests that a standardized team-based approach may improve CS outcomes. A score incorporating demographic, laboratory, and hemodynamic data may be used to quantify risk and guide clinical decision-making for all phenotypes of CS.
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cardiogenic shock; mechanical circulatory support; multidisciplinary care; shock team

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30947919     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.12.084

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  59 in total

Review 1.  Mechanical Circulatory Support: a Comprehensive Review With a Focus on Women.

Authors:  Manal Alasnag; Alexander G Truesdell; Holli Williams; Sara C Martinez; Syeda Kashfi Qadri; John P Skendelas; William A Jakobleff; Mirvat Alasnag
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2020-04-23       Impact factor: 5.113

2.  Acute Cardiac Unloading and Recovery: Proceedings of the 5th Annual Acute Cardiac Unloading and REcovery (A-CURE) symposium held on 14 December 2020.

Authors: 
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2021-03-23

3.  Discordance Between Clinical Assessment and Invasive Hemodynamics in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure.

Authors:  Nikhil Narang; Ben Chung; Ann Nguyen; Rohan J Kalathiya; Luke J Laffin; Luise Holzhauser; Imo A Ebong; Stephanie A Besser; Teruhiko Imamura; Bryan A Smith; Sara Kalantari; Jayant Raikhelkar; Nitasha Sarswat; Gene H Kim; Valluvan Jeevanandam; Daniel Burkhoff; Gabriel Sayer; Nir Uriel
Journal:  J Card Fail       Date:  2019-08-21       Impact factor: 5.712

4.  Acute Cardiac Unloading and Recovery: Proceedings of the 4th Annual Acute Cardiac Unloading and REcovery (A-CURE) symposium held on 30 August 2019 in Paris, France.

Authors: 
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2019-11-18

Review 5.  The Surgeon's Role in Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Alexandra E Sperry; Matthew Williams; Pavan Atluri; Wilson Y Szeto; Marisa Cevasco; Christian A Bermudez; Michael A Acker; Michael Ibrahim
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2021-05-06

Review 6.  Systems of Care in Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Maria M Patarroyo Aponte; Carlos Manrique; Biswajit Kar
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2020 Jan-Mar

Review 7.  Cardiogenic Shock in the Setting of Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Authors:  Navin K Kapur; Katherine L Thayer; Elric Zweck
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2020 Jan-Mar

Review 8.  A Standardized and Comprehensive Approach to the Management of Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Behnam N Tehrani; Alexander G Truesdell; Mitchell A Psotka; Carolyn Rosner; Ramesh Singh; Shashank S Sinha; Abdulla A Damluji; Wayne B Batchelor
Journal:  JACC Heart Fail       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 12.035

9.  Shock Team Approach in Refractory Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Short-Term Mechanical Circulatory Support: A Proof of Concept.

Authors:  Iosif Taleb; Antigone G Koliopoulou; Anwar Tandar; Stephen H McKellar; Joseph E Tonna; Jose Nativi-Nicolau; Miguel Alvarez Villela; Frederick Welt; Josef Stehlik; Edward M Gilbert; Omar Wever-Pinzon; Jack H Morshedzadeh; Elizabeth Dranow; Craig H Selzman; James C Fang; Stavros G Drakos
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 29.690

10.  Cardiac safety research consortium "shock II" think tank report: Advancing practical approaches to generating evidence for the treatment of cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  Marc D Samsky; Mitchell W Krucoff; David A Morrow; William T Abraham; Fernando Aguel; Andrew D Althouse; Eric Chen; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Adam D DeVore; Andrew Farb; Ian C Gilchrist; Timothy D Henry; Judith S Hochman; Navin K Kapur; Valarie Morrow; E Magnus Ohman; William W O'Neill; Ileana L Piña; Alastair G Proudfoot; John S Sapirstein; Jonathan H Seltzer; Fred Senatore; Meir Shinnar; Charles A Simonton; Behnam N Tehrani; Holger Thiele; Alexander G Truesdell; Ron Waksman; Sunil V Rao
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2020-10-02       Impact factor: 4.749

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.