Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock- Diagnosis, Monitoring and Therapy­A German-Austrian S3 Guideline.

BACKGROUND: The second edition of the German-Austrian S3 guideline contains updated evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of patients with infarction-related cardiogenic shock (ICS), whose mortality is several times higher than that of patients with a hemodynamically stable myocardial infarction (1). METHODS: In five consensus conferences, the experts developed 95 recommendations-including two statements-and seven algorithms with concrete instructions. RESULTS: Recanalization of the coronary vessel whose occlusion led to the infarction is crucial for the survival of patients with ICS. The recommended method of choice is primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) with the implantation of a drug-eluting stent (DES). If multiple coronary vessels are diseased, only the infarct artery (the "culprit lesion") should be stented at first. For cardiovascular pharmacotherapy-primarily with dobutamine and norepinephrine-the recommended hemodynamic target range for mean arterial blood pressure is 65-75 mmHg, with a cardiac index (CI) above 2.2 L/min/m2. For optimal treatment in intensive care, recommendations are given regarding the type of ventilation (invasive rather than non-invasive, lungprotective), nutrition (no nutritional intake in uncontrolled shock, no glutamine supplementation), thromboembolism prophylaxis (intravenous heparin rather than subcutaneous prophylaxis), und further topics. In case of pump failure, an intra-aortic balloon pump is not recommended; temporary mechanical support systems (Impella pumps, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [VA-ECMO], and others) are hemodynamically more effective, but have not yet been convincingly shown to improve survival. CONCLUSION: Combined cardiological and intensive-care treatment is crucial for the survival of patients with ICS. Coronary treatment for ICS seems to have little potential for further improvement, while intensive-care methods can still be optimized.

Preoperative risk assessment--from routine tests to individualized investigation.

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment in adults who are about to undergo elective surgery (other than cardiac and thoracic procedures) involves history-taking, physical examination, and ancillary studies performed for individual indications. Further testing beyond the history and physical examination is often of low predictive value for perioperative complications. METHOD: This review is based on pertinent articles that were retrieved by a selective search in the Medline and Cochrane Library databases and on the consensus-derived recommendations of the German specialty societies. RESULTS: The history and physical examination remain the central components of preoperative risk assessment. Advanced age is not, in itself, a reason for ancillary testing. Laboratory testing should be performed only if relevant organ disease is known or suspected, or to assess the potential side effects of pharmacotherapy. Electrocardiography as a screening test seems to add little relevant information, even in patients with stable heart disease. A chest X-ray should be obtained only if a disease is suspected whose detection would have clinical consequences in the perioperative period. CONCLUSION: In preoperative risk assessment, the history and physical examination are the strongest predictors of perioperative complications. Ancillary tests are indicated on an individual basis if the history and physical examination reveal that significant disease may be present.