El shock cardiogénico como problema de salud. Fisiología, clasificación y detección / Cardiogenic shock as a health issue: Physiology, classification, and detection

El shock cardiogénico (SC) es un síndrome heterogéneo con elevada mortalidad y creciente incidencia. Se trata de una situación en la que existe un desequilibrio entre las necesidades tisulares de oxígeno y la capacidad del sistema cardiovascular para satisfacerlas debido a una disfunción cardiaca aguda. Históricamente, los síndromes coronarios agudos han sido la causa principal de SC; sin embargo, los casos no isquémicos han aumentado en incidencia. Su fisiopatología implica el daño isquémico del miocardio, una respuesta tanto simpática como del sistema renina-angiotensina-aldosterona e inflamatoria, que perpetúan la situación de hipoperfusión tisular conduciendo finalmente a la disfunción multiorgánica. La caracterización de los pacientes con SC mediante una valoración triaxial y la universalización de la escala SCAI ha permitido una estandarización de la estratificación de la gravedad del SC que, sumada a la detección precoz y el enfoque Hub and Spoke, podrían contribuir a mejorar el pronóstico de los pacientes en SC. (AU)

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a heterogeneous syndrome with high mortality and increasing incidence. It is a condition where there is an imbalance between tissue oxygen demands and the cardiovascular system's capacity to meet them due to acute cardiac dysfunction. Historically, acute coronary syndromes have been the primary cause of CS; however, non-ischemic cases have seen a rise in incidence. Its pathophysiology involves myocardial ischemic damage, a sympathetic, renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system, and inflammatory response, perpetuating the situation of tissue hypoperfusion, ultimately leading to multiorgan dysfunction. Characterizing CS patients through a triaxial assessment and the widespread use of the SCAI scale has allowed standardization of CS severity stratification, which, coupled with early detection and the “Hub and Spoke” approach, could contribute to improve the prognosis of CS patients. (AU)

Cardiogenic shock as a health issue. Physiology, classification, and detection.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a heterogeneous syndrome with high mortality and a growing incidence. It is characterized by an imbalance between the tissue oxygen demands and the capacity of the cardiovascular system to meet these demands, due to acute cardiac dysfunction. Historically, acute coronary syndromes have been the primary cause of CS. However, non-ischemic cases have seen a rise in incidence. The pathophysiology involves ischemic damage of the myocardium and a sympathetic, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and inflammatory response, perpetuating the situation of tissue hypoperfusion and ultimately leading to multiorgan dysfunction. The characterization of CS patients through a triaxial assessment and the widespread use of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) scale has allowed standardization of the severity stratification of CS; this, coupled with early detection and the "hub and spoke" approach, could contribute to improving the prognosis of these patients.

Manejo clínico del shock poscardiotomía en pacientes adultos / Clinical management of postcardiotomy shock in adults

Postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock represents the most serious expression of low cardiac output syndrome after cardiac surgery. Although infrequent, it is a relevant condition due to its specific and complex pathophysiology and important morbidity-mortality. The diagnosis requires a high index of suspicion and multimodal hemodynamic monitoring, where echocardiography and the pulmonary arterial catheter play a main role. Early and multidisciplinary management should focus on the management of postoperative or mechanical complications and the optimization of determinants of cardiac output through fluid therapy or diuretic treatments, inotropic drugs and vasopressors/vasodilators and, in the absence of a response, early mechanical circulatory support. The aim of this paper is to review and update the pathophysiology, diagnosis and management of postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (AU)

El shock cardiogénico poscardiotomía representa la situación clínica más grave del síndrome de bajo gasto poscirugía cardiaca. Aunque infrecuente, su fisiopatología específica y compleja y su elevada morbimortalidad lo convierten en una entidad especialmente relevante en el contexto de la medicina intensiva. El diagnóstico requiere un elevado índice de sospecha clínica y monitorización multimodal, con un papel fundamental para la ecocardiografía y el catéter de arteria pulmonar. Su manejo debe ser precoz, escalonado y dinámico, multisistémico, multidisciplinar, basado en resolver potenciales complicaciones mecánicas y optimizar los determinantes del gasto cardiaco mediante aporte de volumen o tratamiento deplectivo, fármacos inotrópicos y vasopresores/vasodilatadores y, en ausencia de respuesta, soporte circulatorio mecánico precoz. El objetivo de este artículo es presentar una revisión narrativa y una actualización de la fisiopatología, el diagnóstico y el manejo clínico del shock poscardiotomía. Además, se proponen pautas de actuación que faciliten el manejo clínico diario (AU)

Clinical management of postcardiotomy shock in adults.

Postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock represents the most serious expression of low cardiac output syndrome after cardiac surgery. Although infrequent, it is a relevant condition due to its specific and complex pathophysiology and important morbidity-mortality. The diagnosis requires a high index of suspicion and multimodal hemodynamic monitoring, where echocardiography and the pulmonary arterial catheter play a main role. Early and multidisciplinary management should focus on the management of postoperative or mechanical complications and the optimization of determinants of cardiac output through fluid therapy or diuretic treatments, inotropic drugs and vasopressors/vasodilators and, in the absence of a response, early mechanical circulatory support. The aim of this paper is to review and update the pathophysiology, diagnosis and management of postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock.

Outcomes of a multidisciplinary mechanical circulatory support network in cardiogenic shock in a centre without heart transplant program: A successful interprofessional coordination model.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Cardiogenic shock (CS) mortality remains very high and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may provide an effective alternative of treatment in selected patients. The aim of this study is to analyse the results of a multidisciplinary team care program (including anaesthesiologists, cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, and intensivists) in CS patients who required MCS, in a tertiary centre without a heart transplant (HT) program. METHODS: Prospective observational study that sought to analyse the characteristics and survival to discharge predictors in a consecutive CS patients cohort treated with MCS. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients were included. Mean age was 61 ± 14 years. Before MCS, 45.8% of the patients presented with cardiac arrest. A 54.2% 30-day survival and 45.8% overall survival to discharge, was found. Age and vasoactive-inotropic score were independent predictors of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary team-care based MCS program in CS patients is feasible and may achieve favourable results in a centre without HT program.

Resultados de un programa multidisciplinar de soporte circulatorio mecánico en shock cardiogénico en un centro sin programa de trasplante cardiaco: un modelo exitoso de coordinación entre profesionales / Outcomes of a multidisciplinary mechanical circulatory support network in cardiogenic shock in a centre without heart transplant program: A successful interprofessional coordination model

Antecedentes y objetivo: El shock cardiogénico (SC) conlleva una elevada mortalidad, y algunos pacientes pueden beneficiarse del uso de soporte circulatorio mecánico (SCM). El objetivo de este estudio es analizar los resultados de un programa multidisciplinar (constituido por anestesiología y reanimación, cardiología, cirugía cardiaca y medicina intensiva) de atención a pacientes en SC que precisaron SCM en un hospital terciario sin programa de trasplante cardiaco. (TC). Materiales y métodosEstudio prospectivo observacional que analiza las características y predictores de supervivencia hospitalaria de los pacientes con SC que precisaron SCM. Resultados: Se incluyeron 48 pacientes. Edad media 61±14años. El 45,8% presentaron parada cardiaca previa al implante. La supervivencia a 30días fue del 54,2% y la supervivencia al alta hospitalaria, del 45,8%. La edad y la escala de vasoactivos inotrópicos fueron predictores independientes de mortalidad. Conclusiones: La instauración de un programa multidisciplinar de SCM en un centro sin programa de TC es factible y aplicable a pacientes con SC, con resultados favorables en cuanto a supervivencia hospitalaria.(AU)

Background and objective: Cardiogenic shock (CS) mortality remains very high and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may provide an effective alternative of treatment in selected patients. The aim of this study is to analyse the results of a multidisciplinary team care program (including anaesthesiologists, cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, and intensivists) in CS patients who required MCS, in a tertiary centre without a heart transplant (HT) program. Methods: Prospective observational study that sought to analyse the characteristics and survival to discharge predictors in a consecutive CS patients cohort treated with MCS. Results: A total of 48 patients were included. Mean age was 61 ± 14 years. Before MCS, 45.8% of the patients presented with cardiac arrest. A 54.2% 30-day survival and 45.8% overall survival to discharge, was found. Age and vasoactive-inotropic score were independent predictors of mortality. Conclusions: A multidisciplinary team-care based MCS program in CS patients is feasible and may achieve favourable results in a centre without HT program.(AU)

Usefulness of severity scales for cardiogenic shock in-hospital mortality. Proposal for a new prognostic model.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a condition comprising multiple etiologies, which associates high mortality rates. Some scoring systems have been shown to be good predictors of hospital mortality in patients admitted to Critical Care Units (CCU). The main objective of this study is to analyze their usefulness and validity in a cohort of CS patients. METHODS: Observational unicentric study of a cohort of CS patients. SOFA, SAPS II and APACHE II scores were calculated in the first 24 h of CCU admission. RESULTS: 130 patients with CS were included. SOFA, SAPS II and APACHE II scores revealed good discrimination for hospital mortality: (AUC) ROC values (AUC: 0.711, 0.752 and 0.742 respectively; P = .6). Calibration, estimated by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, was adequate in all cases. Acute coronary syndrome, lactate serum values, SAPS II score and vasoactive inotropic score (VIS) were found to be independent predictors for mortality, upon ICU admission. With these variables, a specific prognostic indicator was developed (SAPS-2-LIVE), which improved predictive capability for mortality in our series (AUC) ROC, 0.825 (95% CI 0.752-0.89). CONCLUSION: In this contemporary CS cohort, the aforementioned scores have been shown to have good predictive ability for hospital mortality. These findings could contribute to a more accurate risk stratification in CS.

Utilidad de las escalas de gravedad en la predicción de mortalidad intrahospitalaria en el shock cardiogénico. Propuesta de un nuevo modelo pronóstico / Usefulness of severity scales for cardiogenic shock in-hospital mortality. Proposal for a new prognostic model

El shock cardiogénico (SC) es una entidad que comprende múltiples etiologías y asocia elevada mortalidad. Algunas escalas de gravedad han demostrado ser buenos predictores de mortalidad hospitalaria en pacientes ingresados en Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos (UCI). El objetivo principal de este estudio es analizar su utilidad y validez en una cohorte de pacientes en SC. Métodos: Estudio observacional unicéntrico. Se calcularon las escalas SOFA, SAPSII y APACHEII en las primeras 24horas de ingreso en UCI. Resultados: Se incluyeron 130 pacientes con SC. Las escalas SOFA, SAPSII y APACHEII mostraron buena discriminación para la mortalidad hospitalaria, obteniendo valores de área bajo la curva (AUC) ROC similares (AUC: 0,711, 0,752 y 0,742, respectivamente; p=0,6). La calibración, estimada por el test de Hosmer-Lemeshow, fue adecuada en todos los casos, SOFA (p=0,787), SAPSII (p=0,078) y APACHEII (p=0,522). Resultaron: predictores independientes de mortalidad intrahospitalaria: el síndrome coronario agudo (SCA), los valores de lactato sérico, el SAPSII y el índice de vasoactivos inotrópicos (VIS) en las primeras 24horas de ingreso en UCI.Con estas variables se desarrolló un indicador pronóstico específico para el SC (SAPS-2-LIVE) que mejora la capacidad predictiva de mortalidad en nuestra serie (AUC) ROC, 0,825 (IC 95% 0,752-0,89). Conclusión: En esta cohorte contemporánea de SC, las escalas SOFA, SAPSII y APACHEII han demostrado una buena capacidad de predicción de mortalidad hospitalaria. Estos hallazgos podrían contribuir a una mejor estratificación del riesgo en el SC.(AU)

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a condition comprising multiple etiologies, which associates high mortality rates. Some scoring systems have been shown to be good predictors of hospital mortality in patients admitted to Critical Care Units (CCU). The main objective of this study is to analyze their usefulness and validity in a cohort of CS patients. Methods: Observational unicentric study of a cohort of CS patients. SOFA, SAPSII and APACHEII scores were calculated in the first 24hours of CCU admission. Results: 130 patients with CS were included. SOFA, SAPSII and APACHEII scores revealed good discrimination for hospital mortality: (AUC) ROC values (AUC: 0.711, 0.752 and 0.742 respectively; p=0.6). Calibration, estimated by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, was adequate in all cases.Acute coronary syndrome, lactate serum values, SAPSII score and vasoactive inotropic score (VIS) were found to be independent predictors for mortality, upon ICU admission. With these variables, a specific prognostic indicator was developed (SAPS-2-LIVE), which improved predictive capability for mortality in our series (AUC) ROC, 0.825 (95% CI 0.752-0.89). Conclusion: In this contemporary CS cohort, the aforementioned scores have been shown to have good predictive ability for hospital mortality. These findings could contribute to a more accurate risk stratification in CS.(AU)

Initial outcomes of a multidisciplinary network for the care of patients with cardiogenic shock.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Mortality remains high in cardiogenic shock (CS), especially in refractory CS involving the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices. The aim of this study was to analyze the results of a care program for patients in CS after the creation of a multidisciplinary team in our center and a regional network of hospitals in our area. METHODS: Observational and retrospective study of patients attended in this program from September 2014 to January 2019. We included patients in refractory CS who required MCS and those who, because of their age and absence of comorbidities, were candidates for advanced therapies. The primary endpoint was survival to discharge. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients were included (69 local and 61 transferred patients). The mean age was 52±15 years (72% men). The most frequent causes of CS were acute decompensated heart failure (29%), acute myocardial infarction (26%), and postcardiotomy CS (25%). MCS was used in 105 patients (81%), mostly extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (58%). Survival to discharge was 57% (74 of 130 patients). The most frequent destinations were myocardial recovery and heart transplant. Independent predictors of in-hospital mortality were SAPS II score, lactate level, acute myocardial infarction etiology, and vasoactive-inotropic score. CONCLUSIONS: The creation of multidisciplinary teams for patients with mainly refractory CS and a regional network is feasible and allows survival to discharge in more than a half of attended patients with CS.

Dispositivos de asistencia ventricular en insuficiencia cardíaca avanzada

La insuficiencia cardíaca (IC) continúa siendo una enfermedad de alta prevalencia, afectando al 1-2% de la población en países desarrollados y constituye por ello un problema de salud por los altos costos que esto conlleva. A pesar de los avances en el tratamiento farmacológico y mediante dispositivos implantables presenta un pronóstico pobre. Aproximadamente un 5% de los pacientes con diagnóstico de IC se hallan en un estadio avanzado de la enfermedad o estadio D. En las últimas tres décadas el trasplante cardíaco (TC) se ha convertido en el tratamiento de elección para este grupo de altísimo riesgo. Desafortunadamente, un pequeño porcentaje de pacientes cumple con la edad adecuada y con la ausencia de comorbilidades necesarias para poder acceder a este tratamiento, además de la limitante de la escasez de donantes en la actualidad. Debido a ello y a las largas listas de espera a nivel mundial, cada vez es mayor el desarrollo y la utilización de dispositivos de asistencia ventricular (DAV), que han mejorado la supervivencia a corto y largo plazo, dada la calidad de vida de pacientes con esta grave afección, generando una reducción progresiva de la tasa de complicaciones. Estos beneficios no solo aportan una alternativa a pacientes que esperan un TC, sino que permiten a aquellos con contraindicaciones reversibles a disponer del tiempo y la oportunidad de convertirse en candidatos adecuados, o en caso de que esto no sea posible, su final utilización como terapia de destino. Aun así son muchas las limitaciones de estos dispositivos: su costo, su durabilidad, la tasa de complicaciones y su aplicación a un espectro limitado de pacientes. El avance tecnológico para paliar las complicaciones, la mayor experiencia en los centros de manejo y su generalización para permitir un costo más reducido son estrategias que permitirán que la utilización de DAV en los pacientes con IC avanzada se continúe afianzando.

Heart failure (HF) continues to be a highly prevalent disease, affecting 1-2% of the population in developed countries and is therefore a health problem due to the high costs that this entails. Despite advances in pharmacological treatment and implantable devices, it has a poor prognosis. Approximately 5% of patients diagnosed with HF are in an advanced stage of the disease or stage D. In the last three decades, heart transplantation (HT) has become the treatment of choice for this group of very high risk. Unfortunately, a small percentage of patients meet the appropriate age and the absence of comorbidities necessary to access this treatment, in addition to the limitation of the shortage of donors at present. Due to this and the long waiting lists worldwide, the development and use of ventricular assist devices (VAD), which have improved short and long-term survival, due to the quality of life of patients with This serious condition, generating a progressive reduction in the rate of complications. These benefits not only provide an alternative for patients waiting for a HT, but also allow those with reversible contraindications to have the time and opportunity to become suitable candidates, or in case this is not possible, their final use as therapy of destiny. Even so, there are many limitations of these devices: their cost, their durability, the rate of complications and their application to a limited spectrum of patients. The technological advance to alleviate the complications, the greater experience in the centers of management and its generalization to allow a lower cost are strategies that will allow the use of VAD in patients with advanced HF to continue strengthening.

A insuficiência cardíaca (IC) continua a ser uma doença altamente prevalente, afetando 1-2% da população nos países desenvolvidos e, portanto, é um problema de saúde devido aos altos custos que isso acarreta. Apesar dos avanços no tratamento farmacológico e dispositivos implantáveis, tem um mau prognóstico. Aproximadamente 5% dos pacientes com diagnóstico de IC estão em estágio avançado da doença ou estágio D. Nas últimas três décadas, o transplante cardíaco (TC) tornou-se o tratamento de escolha para esse grupo de risco muito alto. Infelizmente, uma pequena porcentagem de pacientes atinge a idade adequada e a ausência de comorbidades necessárias para acessar esse tratamento, além da limitação da falta de doadores no momento. Devido a isso e as longas listas de espera em todo o mundo, o desenvolvimento e uso de dispositivos de assistência ventricular (DAV), que melhoraram a sobrevivência a curto e longo prazo, devido à qualidade de vida dos pacientes com Esta condição séria, gerando uma redução progressiva na taxa de complicações. Esses benefícios não apenas fornecem uma alternativa para pacientes que aguardam um TC, mas também permitem que aqueles com contraindicações reversíveis tenham tempo e oportunidade de se tornarem candidatos adequados ou, caso isso não seja possível, seu uso final como terapia. de destino. Mesmo assim, existem muitas limitações desses dispositivos: seu custo, sua durabilidade, a taxa de complicações e sua aplicação a um espectro limitado de pacientes. O avanço tecnológico para aliviar as complicações, a maior experiência nos centros de gestão e sua generalização para permitir um menor custo são estratégias que permitirão que o uso do DAV em pacientes com IC avançada continue fortalecendo-se.

Heart Transplant and Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure.

Patients with advanced heart failure have a poor prognosis and heart transplant is still the best treatment option. However, the scarcity of donors, long waiting times, and an increasing number of unstable patients have favored the development of mechanical circulatory support. This review summarizes the indications for heart transplant, candidate evaluation, current immunosuppression strategies, the evaluation and treatment of rejection, infectious prophylaxis, and short and long-term outcomes. Regarding mechanical circulatory support, we distinguish between short- and long-term support and the distinct strategies that can be used: bridge to decision, recovery, candidacy, transplant, and destination therapy. We then discuss indications, risk assessment, management of complications, especially with long-term support, and outcomes. Finally, we discuss future challenges and how the widespread use of long-term support for patients with advanced heart failure will only be viable if their complications and costs are reduced.