Evan H Whitehead1, Katherine L Thayer2, Kenji Sunagawa3, Jaime Hernandez-Montfort4, A Reshad Garan5, Manreet K Kanwar6, Shashank S Sinha7, Claudius Mahr8, Navin K Kapur2, Daniel Burkhoff9. 1. Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, The Cardiovascular Center, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Circulatory System Research Foundation, Tokyo, Japan. 4. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, FL. 5. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Cardiovascular Institute at Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA. 7. Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, VA. 8. Division of Cardiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 9. Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, NY. Electronic address: dburkhoff@crf.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sympathetically mediated redistribution of blood from the unstressed venous reservoir to the hemodynamically active stressed compartment is thought to contribute to congestion in cardiogenic shock (CS). We used a novel computational method to estimate stressed blood volume (SBV) in CS and assess its relationship with clinical outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Hemodynamic parameters including estimated SBV (eSBV) were compared among patients from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry with a complete set of hemodynamic data. eSBV was compared across shock etiologies (acute myocardial infarction and CS (AMI-CS) vs heart failure with CS (HF-CS), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions stage, and between survivors and nonsurvivors. Among 528 patients with patients analyzed, the mean eSBV was 2423 mL/70 kg and increased with increasing Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions stage (B, 2029 mL/70 kg; C, 2305 mL/70 kg; D, 2496 mL/70 kg; E, 2707 mL/70 kg; P < .001). The eSBV was significantly greater among patients with HF-CS who died compared with survivors (2733 vs 2357 mL/70 kg; P < .001), whereas no significant difference was observed between outcome groups in AMI-CS (2501 mL/70 kg vs 2384 mL/70 kg; P = .19). CONCLUSIONS: eSBV is a novel integrated index of congestion which correlates with shock severity. eSBV was higher in patients with HF-CS who died; no difference was observed in patients with AMI-CS, suggesting that congestion may play a more significant role in the deterioration of patients with HF-CS.
BACKGROUND: Sympathetically mediated redistribution of blood from the unstressed venous reservoir to the hemodynamically active stressed compartment is thought to contribute to congestion in cardiogenic shock (CS). We used a novel computational method to estimate stressed blood volume (SBV) in CS and assess its relationship with clinical outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Hemodynamic parameters including estimated SBV (eSBV) were compared among patients from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry with a complete set of hemodynamic data. eSBV was compared across shock etiologies (acute myocardial infarction and CS (AMI-CS) vs heart failure with CS (HF-CS), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions stage, and between survivors and nonsurvivors. Among 528 patients with patients analyzed, the mean eSBV was 2423 mL/70 kg and increased with increasing Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions stage (B, 2029 mL/70 kg; C, 2305 mL/70 kg; D, 2496 mL/70 kg; E, 2707 mL/70 kg; P < .001). The eSBV was significantly greater among patients with HF-CS who died compared with survivors (2733 vs 2357 mL/70 kg; P < .001), whereas no significant difference was observed between outcome groups in AMI-CS (2501 mL/70 kg vs 2384 mL/70 kg; P = .19). CONCLUSIONS: eSBV is a novel integrated index of congestion which correlates with shock severity. eSBV was higher in patients with HF-CS who died; no difference was observed in patients with AMI-CS, suggesting that congestion may play a more significant role in the deterioration of patients with HF-CS.
Authors: Marat Fudim; David M Kaye; Barry A Borlaug; Sanjiv J Shah; Stuart Rich; Navin K Kapur; Maria Rosa Costanzo; Michael I Brener; Kenji Sunagawa; Daniel Burkhoff Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 27.203