Pub Date : 2024-08-01Epub Date: 2024-05-28DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000001168
David Dorian, Ross J Thomson, Hoong Sern Lim, Alastair G Proudfoot
Purpose of review: We review the current Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) cardiogenic shock classification system and consider alternatives or iterations that may enhance our current descriptions of cardiogenic shock trajectory.
Recent findings: Several studies have identified the potential prognostic value of serial SCAI stage re-assessment, usually within the first 24 h of shock onset, to predict deterioration and clinical outcomes across shock causes. In parallel, numerous registry-based analyses support the utility of a more precise assessment of the macrocirculation and microcirculation, leveraging invasive haemodynamics, imaging and additional laboratory and clinical markers. The emergence of machine learning and artificial intelligence capabilities offers the opportunity to integrate multimodal data into high fidelity, real-time metrics to more precisely define trajectory and inform our therapeutic decision making.
Summary: Whilst the SCAI staging system remains a pivotal tool in cardiogenic shock assessment, communication and reassessment, it is vital that the sophistication with which we measure and assess shock trajectory evolves in parallel our understanding of the complexity and variability of clinical course and clinical outcomes.
{"title":"Cardiogenic shock trajectories: is the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions definition the right one?","authors":"David Dorian, Ross J Thomson, Hoong Sern Lim, Alastair G Proudfoot","doi":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001168","DOIUrl":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001168","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>We review the current Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) cardiogenic shock classification system and consider alternatives or iterations that may enhance our current descriptions of cardiogenic shock trajectory.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Several studies have identified the potential prognostic value of serial SCAI stage re-assessment, usually within the first 24 h of shock onset, to predict deterioration and clinical outcomes across shock causes. In parallel, numerous registry-based analyses support the utility of a more precise assessment of the macrocirculation and microcirculation, leveraging invasive haemodynamics, imaging and additional laboratory and clinical markers. The emergence of machine learning and artificial intelligence capabilities offers the opportunity to integrate multimodal data into high fidelity, real-time metrics to more precisely define trajectory and inform our therapeutic decision making.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Whilst the SCAI staging system remains a pivotal tool in cardiogenic shock assessment, communication and reassessment, it is vital that the sophistication with which we measure and assess shock trajectory evolves in parallel our understanding of the complexity and variability of clinical course and clinical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":10851,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Critical Care","volume":" ","pages":"324-332"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141261615","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-08-01Epub Date: 2024-06-10DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000001177
Bhavya Varma, Jason N Katz, Carlos L Alviar
Purpose of review: This review provides key information about cardiogenic shock (CS) teams, including published evidence and practical recommendations to create a CS team and program.
Recent findings: CS is a complex disease process with a high in-hospital mortality rate ranging from 30% to 70% according to recent registries and randomized studies. The explanation for the elevated rates is likely multifactorial, including the various etiologies of cardiogenic shock as well as delays in recognition and deployment of appropriate therapies. Accordingly, the use of cardiogenic shock team has been implemented with the aim of improving outcomes in these patients. The CS team typically consists of members with critical care or cardiac critical care expertise, heart failure, cardiothoracic surgery, and interventional cardiology. A number of retrospective studies have now supported the benefits of a CS team, particularly in selecting the appropriate candidates for tailored mechanical circulatory support therapies and providing interventions in a timely manner, which have translated into improved outcomes.
Summary: CS teams provides a platform for expedited recognition of CS and timely, standardized, and multidisciplinary discussions regarding appropriate management and care.
{"title":"Building a cardiogenic shock response team: key considerations necessary to improve outcomes.","authors":"Bhavya Varma, Jason N Katz, Carlos L Alviar","doi":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001177","DOIUrl":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001177","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>This review provides key information about cardiogenic shock (CS) teams, including published evidence and practical recommendations to create a CS team and program.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>CS is a complex disease process with a high in-hospital mortality rate ranging from 30% to 70% according to recent registries and randomized studies. The explanation for the elevated rates is likely multifactorial, including the various etiologies of cardiogenic shock as well as delays in recognition and deployment of appropriate therapies. Accordingly, the use of cardiogenic shock team has been implemented with the aim of improving outcomes in these patients. The CS team typically consists of members with critical care or cardiac critical care expertise, heart failure, cardiothoracic surgery, and interventional cardiology. A number of retrospective studies have now supported the benefits of a CS team, particularly in selecting the appropriate candidates for tailored mechanical circulatory support therapies and providing interventions in a timely manner, which have translated into improved outcomes.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>CS teams provides a platform for expedited recognition of CS and timely, standardized, and multidisciplinary discussions regarding appropriate management and care.</p>","PeriodicalId":10851,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Critical Care","volume":" ","pages":"354-361"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141316870","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-08-01Epub Date: 2024-05-22DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000001164
Christiaan L Meuwese, Lex M van Loon, Dirk W Donker
Purpose of review: The purpose of this review is to explain the value of computational physiological modeling for in-depth understanding of the complex derangements of cardiopulmonary pathophysiology during cardiogenic shock, particularly when treated with temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices.
Recent findings: Computational physiological models have evolved in recent years and can provide a high degree of clinical realism in the simulation of cardiogenic shock and related conservative and interventional therapies. These models feature a large spectrum of practically relevant hemodynamic and respiratory parameters tunable to patient-specific disease states as well as adjustable to medical therapies and support device settings. Current applications work in real-time and can operate on an ordinary computer, laptop or mobile device.
Summary: The use of computational physiological models is increasingly appreciated for educational purposes as they help to understand the complexity of cardiogenic shock, especially when sophisticated management of tMCS is involved in addition to multimodal critical care support. Practical implementation of computational models as clinical decision support tools at the bedside is at the horizon but awaits rigorous clinical validation.
{"title":"Understanding the complexity of cardiogenic shock management: the added value of advanced computational modeling.","authors":"Christiaan L Meuwese, Lex M van Loon, Dirk W Donker","doi":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001164","DOIUrl":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001164","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>The purpose of this review is to explain the value of computational physiological modeling for in-depth understanding of the complex derangements of cardiopulmonary pathophysiology during cardiogenic shock, particularly when treated with temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Computational physiological models have evolved in recent years and can provide a high degree of clinical realism in the simulation of cardiogenic shock and related conservative and interventional therapies. These models feature a large spectrum of practically relevant hemodynamic and respiratory parameters tunable to patient-specific disease states as well as adjustable to medical therapies and support device settings. Current applications work in real-time and can operate on an ordinary computer, laptop or mobile device.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>The use of computational physiological models is increasingly appreciated for educational purposes as they help to understand the complexity of cardiogenic shock, especially when sophisticated management of tMCS is involved in addition to multimodal critical care support. Practical implementation of computational models as clinical decision support tools at the bedside is at the horizon but awaits rigorous clinical validation.</p>","PeriodicalId":10851,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Critical Care","volume":" ","pages":"340-343"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141260237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-08-01Epub Date: 2024-06-06DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000001170
Alexander Moiroux-Sahraoui, Francesca Manicone, Antoine Herpain
Purpose of review: Preclinical experimentation of cardiogenic shock resuscitation on large animal models represents a powerful tool to decipher its complexity and improve its poor outcome, when small animal models are lacking external validation, and clinical investigation are limited due to technical and ethical constraints. This review illustrates the currently available preclinical models addressing reliably the physiopathology and hemodynamic phenotype of cardiogenic shock, highlighting on the opposite questionable translation based on low severity acute myocardial infarction (AMI) models.
Recent findings: Three types of preclinical models replicate reliably AMI-related cardiogenic shock, either with coronary microembolization, coronary deoxygenated blood perfusion or double critical coronary sub-occlusion. These models overcame the pitfall of frequent periprocedural cardiac arrest and offer, to different extents, robust opportunities to investigate pharmacological and/or mechanical circulatory support therapeutic strategies, cardioprotective approaches improving heart recovery and mitigation of the systemic inflammatory reaction. They all came with their respective strengths and weaknesses, allowing the researcher to select the right preclinical model for the right clinical question.
Summary: AMI-related cardiogenic shock preclinical models are now well established and should replace low severity AMI models. Technical and ethical constraints are not trivial, but this translational research is a key asset to build up meaningful future clinical investigations.
{"title":"How preclinical models help to improve outcome in cardiogenic shock.","authors":"Alexander Moiroux-Sahraoui, Francesca Manicone, Antoine Herpain","doi":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001170","DOIUrl":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001170","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Preclinical experimentation of cardiogenic shock resuscitation on large animal models represents a powerful tool to decipher its complexity and improve its poor outcome, when small animal models are lacking external validation, and clinical investigation are limited due to technical and ethical constraints. This review illustrates the currently available preclinical models addressing reliably the physiopathology and hemodynamic phenotype of cardiogenic shock, highlighting on the opposite questionable translation based on low severity acute myocardial infarction (AMI) models.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Three types of preclinical models replicate reliably AMI-related cardiogenic shock, either with coronary microembolization, coronary deoxygenated blood perfusion or double critical coronary sub-occlusion. These models overcame the pitfall of frequent periprocedural cardiac arrest and offer, to different extents, robust opportunities to investigate pharmacological and/or mechanical circulatory support therapeutic strategies, cardioprotective approaches improving heart recovery and mitigation of the systemic inflammatory reaction. They all came with their respective strengths and weaknesses, allowing the researcher to select the right preclinical model for the right clinical question.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>AMI-related cardiogenic shock preclinical models are now well established and should replace low severity AMI models. Technical and ethical constraints are not trivial, but this translational research is a key asset to build up meaningful future clinical investigations.</p>","PeriodicalId":10851,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Critical Care","volume":" ","pages":"333-339"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141261621","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-08-01Epub Date: 2024-05-27DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000001167
Lisa Besch, Benedikt Schrage
Purpose of review: Discussing the rationale and current evidence for left ventricular unloading in cardiogenic shock.
Recent findings: Microaxial flow pumps (MFP) and intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) augment cardiac output while simultaneously unloading the left ventricle (e.g. reducing left ventricular pressure), thereby targeting a key mechanism of cardiogenic shock. A recent randomized trial has shown a mortality reduction with MFP in selected patients with cardiogenic shock, strengthening the rationale for this strategy, although the evidence for the IABP is so far neutral. MFP/IABP can also be used concomitantly with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (va-ECMO) to alleviate the va-ECMO-related increase in left ventricular afterload, to facilitate weaning and ultimately to improve myocardial recovery and prognosis of affected patients. However, the use of MFP/IABP in this indication solely relies on retrospective data, which need to be interpreted with caution, especially as these strategies are associated with more complications. Currently ongoing randomized trials will help to further clarify the role of left ventricular unloading in patients on va-ECMO.
Summary: Left ventricular unloading addresses a key mechanism of cardiogenic shock, with strong evidence to support MFP use in selected patients, but further randomized controlled trials are required to clarify the role of different devices/strategies for the overall shock population.
{"title":"Unloading in cardiogenic shock: the rationale and current evidence.","authors":"Lisa Besch, Benedikt Schrage","doi":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001167","DOIUrl":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001167","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Discussing the rationale and current evidence for left ventricular unloading in cardiogenic shock.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Microaxial flow pumps (MFP) and intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) augment cardiac output while simultaneously unloading the left ventricle (e.g. reducing left ventricular pressure), thereby targeting a key mechanism of cardiogenic shock. A recent randomized trial has shown a mortality reduction with MFP in selected patients with cardiogenic shock, strengthening the rationale for this strategy, although the evidence for the IABP is so far neutral. MFP/IABP can also be used concomitantly with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (va-ECMO) to alleviate the va-ECMO-related increase in left ventricular afterload, to facilitate weaning and ultimately to improve myocardial recovery and prognosis of affected patients. However, the use of MFP/IABP in this indication solely relies on retrospective data, which need to be interpreted with caution, especially as these strategies are associated with more complications. Currently ongoing randomized trials will help to further clarify the role of left ventricular unloading in patients on va-ECMO.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Left ventricular unloading addresses a key mechanism of cardiogenic shock, with strong evidence to support MFP use in selected patients, but further randomized controlled trials are required to clarify the role of different devices/strategies for the overall shock population.</p>","PeriodicalId":10851,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Critical Care","volume":" ","pages":"379-384"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141260323","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-08-01Epub Date: 2024-06-06DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000001172
Petr Ostadal, Jan Belohlavek
Purpose of review: Cardiogenic shock is a clinical syndrome with different causes and a complex pathophysiology. Recent evidence from clinical trials evokes the urgent need for redefining clinical diagnostic criteria to be compliant with the definition of cardiogenic shock and current diagnostic methods.
Recent findings: Conflicting results from randomized clinical trials investigating mechanical circulatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock have elicited several extremely important questions. At minimum, it is questionable whether survivors of cardiac arrest should be included in trials focused on cardiogenic shock. Moreover, considering the wide availability of ultrasound and hemodynamic monitors capable of arterial pressure analysis, the current clinical diagnostic criteria based on the presence of hypotension and hypoperfusion have become insufficient. As such, new clinical criteria for the diagnosis of cardiogenic shock should include evidence of low cardiac output and appropriate ventricular filling pressure.
Summary: Clinical diagnostic criteria for cardiogenic shock should be revised to better define cardiac pump failure as a primary cause of hemodynamic compromise.
{"title":"What is cardiogenic shock? New clinical criteria urgently needed.","authors":"Petr Ostadal, Jan Belohlavek","doi":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001172","DOIUrl":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001172","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Cardiogenic shock is a clinical syndrome with different causes and a complex pathophysiology. Recent evidence from clinical trials evokes the urgent need for redefining clinical diagnostic criteria to be compliant with the definition of cardiogenic shock and current diagnostic methods.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Conflicting results from randomized clinical trials investigating mechanical circulatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock have elicited several extremely important questions. At minimum, it is questionable whether survivors of cardiac arrest should be included in trials focused on cardiogenic shock. Moreover, considering the wide availability of ultrasound and hemodynamic monitors capable of arterial pressure analysis, the current clinical diagnostic criteria based on the presence of hypotension and hypoperfusion have become insufficient. As such, new clinical criteria for the diagnosis of cardiogenic shock should include evidence of low cardiac output and appropriate ventricular filling pressure.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Clinical diagnostic criteria for cardiogenic shock should be revised to better define cardiac pump failure as a primary cause of hemodynamic compromise.</p>","PeriodicalId":10851,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Critical Care","volume":" ","pages":"319-323"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11224559/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141260432","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Purpose of review: Treatment of cardiogenic shock remains largely driven by expert consensus due to limited evidence from randomized controlled trials. In this review, we aim to summarize the approach to the management of patients with cardiogenic shock in the ICU prior to mechanical circulatory support (MCS).
Recent findings: Main topics covered in this article include diagnosis, monitoring, initial management and key aspects of pharmacological therapy in the ICU for patients with cardiogenic shock.
Summary: Despite efforts to improve therapy, short-term mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock is still reaching 40-50%. Early recognition and treatment of cardiogenic shock are crucial, including early revascularization of the culprit lesion with possible staged revascularization in acute myocardial infarction (AMI)-CS. Optimal volume management and vasoactive drugs titrated to restore arterial pressure and perfusion are the cornerstone of cardiogenic shock therapy. The choice of vasoactive drugs depends on the underlying cause and phenotype of cardiogenic shock. Their use should be limited to the shortest duration and lowest possible dose. According to recent observational evidence, assessment of the complete hemodynamic profile with a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) was associated with improved outcomes and should be considered early in patients not responding to initial therapy or with unclear shock. A multidisciplinary shock team should be involved early in order to identify potential candidates for temporary and/or durable MCS.
{"title":"ICU management of cardiogenic shock before mechanical support.","authors":"Hannah Schaubroeck, Michelle Rossberg, Holger Thiele, Janine Pöss","doi":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001182","DOIUrl":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001182","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Treatment of cardiogenic shock remains largely driven by expert consensus due to limited evidence from randomized controlled trials. In this review, we aim to summarize the approach to the management of patients with cardiogenic shock in the ICU prior to mechanical circulatory support (MCS).</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Main topics covered in this article include diagnosis, monitoring, initial management and key aspects of pharmacological therapy in the ICU for patients with cardiogenic shock.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Despite efforts to improve therapy, short-term mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock is still reaching 40-50%. Early recognition and treatment of cardiogenic shock are crucial, including early revascularization of the culprit lesion with possible staged revascularization in acute myocardial infarction (AMI)-CS. Optimal volume management and vasoactive drugs titrated to restore arterial pressure and perfusion are the cornerstone of cardiogenic shock therapy. The choice of vasoactive drugs depends on the underlying cause and phenotype of cardiogenic shock. Their use should be limited to the shortest duration and lowest possible dose. According to recent observational evidence, assessment of the complete hemodynamic profile with a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) was associated with improved outcomes and should be considered early in patients not responding to initial therapy or with unclear shock. A multidisciplinary shock team should be involved early in order to identify potential candidates for temporary and/or durable MCS.</p>","PeriodicalId":10851,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Critical Care","volume":" ","pages":"362-370"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141316871","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-08-01Epub Date: 2024-05-31DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000001162
Bethany Anne Hileman, Gennaro Martucci, Harikesh Subramanian
Purpose of review: The purpose of the review is to summarize recent research on metabolic support during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. In this review, we cover the evidence on nutritional supplementation, both the route of supplementation, timing of initiation of supplementation as well as quantities of supplementation needed. In addition, we discuss the recent trend in awake extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and its benefits to patients.
Recent findings: As ECMO use continues to increase over the last few years, for both cardiovascular as well as respiratory failure, the need to optimize the metabolic states of patients has arisen. Increasing evidence has pointed towards this hitherto unexplored domain of patient care having a large impact on outcomes. Additionally, strategies such as awake ECMO for select patients has allowed them to preserve muscle mass which could aid in a faster recovery.
Summary: There is a role of optimal metabolic support in the early recovery of patients on ECMO that is currently under-recognized. Future directions of research that aim to improve post ECMO outcomes must focus on this area.
{"title":"Metabolic support for patients on extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation.","authors":"Bethany Anne Hileman, Gennaro Martucci, Harikesh Subramanian","doi":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001162","DOIUrl":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001162","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>The purpose of the review is to summarize recent research on metabolic support during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. In this review, we cover the evidence on nutritional supplementation, both the route of supplementation, timing of initiation of supplementation as well as quantities of supplementation needed. In addition, we discuss the recent trend in awake extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and its benefits to patients.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>As ECMO use continues to increase over the last few years, for both cardiovascular as well as respiratory failure, the need to optimize the metabolic states of patients has arisen. Increasing evidence has pointed towards this hitherto unexplored domain of patient care having a large impact on outcomes. Additionally, strategies such as awake ECMO for select patients has allowed them to preserve muscle mass which could aid in a faster recovery.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>There is a role of optimal metabolic support in the early recovery of patients on ECMO that is currently under-recognized. Future directions of research that aim to improve post ECMO outcomes must focus on this area.</p>","PeriodicalId":10851,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Critical Care","volume":" ","pages":"305-310"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141261638","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-08-01Epub Date: 2024-06-10DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000001165
Daniel Rob, Jan Belohlavek
Purpose of review: This article offers an overview of recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the efficacy of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) and microaxial flow pump (mAFP) in treating cardiogenic shock, including findings from the DanGer shock trial. It summarizes the clinical implications and limitations of these studies and key decision-making considerations for cardiogenic shock device use.
Recent findings: Despite important limitations in all published RCTs, the routine use of VA ECMO for acute myocardial infarction related cardiogenic shock did not demonstrate benefit and should be reserved for selected patients with extreme forms of cardiogenic shock. Conversely, mAFP (Impella CP) appears promising for cardiogenic shock due to ST elevation myocardial infarction. A stepwise approach - initial mAFP use for cardiogenic shock with left ventricular failure, supplemented by VA ECMO if mAFP is inadequate or if severe right ventricular failure is present - may be preferable, but requires validation through RCTs. High complication rates in device arms underscore the need for careful patient selection, preventive strategies, education for centers and operators, and further research.
Summary: Recent trials offer insights into mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock, but their real-world applicability is limited. Despite potential benefits, the use of VA ECMO and mAFP is associated with significant complication rates, emphasizing the need for personalized use.
综述目的:本文概述了最近测试静脉-动脉体外膜肺氧合(VA ECMO)和微轴流泵(mAFP)治疗心源性休克疗效的随机对照试验(RCT),包括 DanGer 休克试验的结果。报告总结了这些研究的临床意义和局限性,以及使用心源性休克设备的关键决策注意事项:尽管所有已发表的 RCT 均存在重要的局限性,但常规使用 VA ECMO 治疗急性心肌梗死相关心源性休克并未显示出其益处,应保留给特定的极端形式心源性休克患者。相反,mAFP(Impella CP)似乎有望用于 ST 抬高型心肌梗死引起的心源性休克。一种循序渐进的方法可能更为可取--首先使用 mAFP 治疗左心室功能衰竭的心源性休克,如果 mAFP 不足或出现严重的右心室功能衰竭,则辅以 VA ECMO,但这一方法需要通过 RCT 验证。装置臂的并发症发生率较高,这凸显了谨慎选择患者、制定预防策略、对中心和操作者进行教育以及开展进一步研究的必要性:最近的试验为心源性休克的机械循环支持提供了启示,但其在现实世界中的适用性有限。尽管 VA ECMO 和 mAFP 具有潜在的益处,但其并发症发生率也很高,这就强调了个性化使用的必要性。
{"title":"Beyond one-size-fits-all in cardiogenic shock: impella, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or tailored use of mechanical circulatory support?","authors":"Daniel Rob, Jan Belohlavek","doi":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001165","DOIUrl":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001165","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>This article offers an overview of recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the efficacy of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) and microaxial flow pump (mAFP) in treating cardiogenic shock, including findings from the DanGer shock trial. It summarizes the clinical implications and limitations of these studies and key decision-making considerations for cardiogenic shock device use.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Despite important limitations in all published RCTs, the routine use of VA ECMO for acute myocardial infarction related cardiogenic shock did not demonstrate benefit and should be reserved for selected patients with extreme forms of cardiogenic shock. Conversely, mAFP (Impella CP) appears promising for cardiogenic shock due to ST elevation myocardial infarction. A stepwise approach - initial mAFP use for cardiogenic shock with left ventricular failure, supplemented by VA ECMO if mAFP is inadequate or if severe right ventricular failure is present - may be preferable, but requires validation through RCTs. High complication rates in device arms underscore the need for careful patient selection, preventive strategies, education for centers and operators, and further research.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Recent trials offer insights into mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock, but their real-world applicability is limited. Despite potential benefits, the use of VA ECMO and mAFP is associated with significant complication rates, emphasizing the need for personalized use.</p>","PeriodicalId":10851,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Critical Care","volume":" ","pages":"371-378"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141316869","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-08-01Epub Date: 2024-06-13DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000001175
Jordan D Philpott, K Marco Rodriguez Hovnanian, Margaret Stefater-Richards, Nilesh M Mehta, Enid E Martinez
Purpose of review: Gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction limits enteral nutrition (EN) delivery in critical illness and contributes to systemic inflammation. The enteroendocrine (EE) axis plays an integral role in this interface between nutrition, inflammation, and GI function in critical illness. In this review, we present an overview of the EE system with a focus on its role in GI inflammation and function.
Recent findings: Enteroendocrine cells have been primarily described in their role in macronutrient digestion and absorption. Recent research has expanded on the diverse functions of EE cells including their ability to sense microbial peptides and metabolites and regulate immune function and inflammation. Therefore, EE cells may be both affected by and contribute to many pathophysiologic states and interventions of critical illness such as dysbiosis , inflammation, and alternative EN strategies. In this review, we present an overview of EE cells including their growing role in nonnutrient functions and integrate this understanding into relevant aspects of critical illness with a focus on EN.
Summary: The EE system is key in maintaining GI homeostasis in critical illness, and how it is impacted and contributes to outcomes in the setting of dysbiosis , inflammation and different feeding strategies in critical illness should be considered.
综述目的:危重症患者的胃肠道(GI)功能障碍会限制肠内营养(EN)的输送,并导致全身性炎症。肠道内分泌(EE)轴在危重症患者的营养、炎症和胃肠道功能之间起着不可或缺的作用。在这篇综述中,我们概述了肠内分泌系统,重点介绍了它在消化道炎症和功能中的作用:最近的研究结果:肠内分泌细胞主要在宏量营养素消化和吸收方面发挥作用。最近的研究扩展了肠内分泌细胞的多种功能,包括感知微生物肽和代谢物以及调节免疫功能和炎症的能力。因此,EE 细胞既可能受到许多病理生理状态和危重病干预措施(如菌群失调、炎症和替代 EN 策略)的影响,也可能对其做出贡献。在这篇综述中,我们概述了 EE 细胞,包括它们在非营养功能中日益增长的作用,并将这一认识融入危重病的相关方面,重点关注 EN。摘要:EE 系统是危重病中维持消化道平衡的关键,在危重病中,它如何受到菌群失调、炎症和不同喂养策略的影响并对结果做出贡献,应加以考虑。
{"title":"The enteroendocrine axis and its effect on gastrointestinal function, nutrition, and inflammation.","authors":"Jordan D Philpott, K Marco Rodriguez Hovnanian, Margaret Stefater-Richards, Nilesh M Mehta, Enid E Martinez","doi":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001175","DOIUrl":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001175","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction limits enteral nutrition (EN) delivery in critical illness and contributes to systemic inflammation. The enteroendocrine (EE) axis plays an integral role in this interface between nutrition, inflammation, and GI function in critical illness. In this review, we present an overview of the EE system with a focus on its role in GI inflammation and function.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Enteroendocrine cells have been primarily described in their role in macronutrient digestion and absorption. Recent research has expanded on the diverse functions of EE cells including their ability to sense microbial peptides and metabolites and regulate immune function and inflammation. Therefore, EE cells may be both affected by and contribute to many pathophysiologic states and interventions of critical illness such as dysbiosis , inflammation, and alternative EN strategies. In this review, we present an overview of EE cells including their growing role in nonnutrient functions and integrate this understanding into relevant aspects of critical illness with a focus on EN.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>The EE system is key in maintaining GI homeostasis in critical illness, and how it is impacted and contributes to outcomes in the setting of dysbiosis , inflammation and different feeding strategies in critical illness should be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":10851,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Critical Care","volume":" ","pages":"290-297"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11295110/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141316907","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}