Current Opinion in Critical Care最新文献

Purpose of review: The purpose of this review is to investigate the long-term outcomes of cancer patients who experience sepsis or septic shock.

Recent findings: Sepsis is a frequent cause of ICU admission in cancer patients, accounting for approximately 15% of such cases. Short-term mortality rates among these patients vary widely across studies, but they are consistently found to be slightly higher than those of noncancer patients. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding the long-term outcomes of cancer patients who have experienced sepsis or septic shock. The few available studies have reported relatively high mortality rates, reaching around 80% in a few cohort studies. Although several observational studies have noted a decrease in 1-year mortality rates over time, observational data also suggest that sepsis may increase the risk of cancer in the long run.

Summary: As cancer is becoming a chronic disease, there is an urgent need for studies on the quality of life of cancer patients who have experienced sepsis. The relationship between sepsis and cancer extends beyond its impact on the progression of cancer, as sepsis might also contribute to the development of cancer.

Purpose of review: Sepsis remains a leading global cause of morbidity and mortality, and despite decades of research, no effective therapies have emerged. The lack of progress in sepsis outcomes is related in part to the significant heterogeneity of sepsis populations. This review seeks to highlight recent literature regarding sepsis phenotypes and the potential for further research and therapeutic intervention.

Recent findings: Numerous recent studies have elucidated various phenotypes, subphenotypes, and endotypes in sepsis. Clinical parameters including vital sign trajectories and microbial factors, biomarker investigation, and genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic studies have illustrated numerous differences in sepsis populations with implications for prediction, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of sepsis.

Summary: Sepsis therapies including care bundles, fluid resuscitation, and source control procedures may be better guided by validated phenotypes than universal application. Novel biomarkers may improve upon the sensitivity and specificity of existing markers and identify complications and sequelae of sepsis. Multiomics have demonstrated significant differences in sepsis populations, most notably expanding our understanding of immunosuppressed sepsis phenotypes. Despite progress, these findings may be limited by modest reproducibility and logistical barriers to clinical implementation. Further studies may translate recent findings into bedside care.

Purpose of review: Sleep and circadian disruption (SCD) are associated with worse outcomes in the ICU population. We discuss sleep, circadian physiology, the role of light in circadian entrainment and its possible role in treating SCD, with special attention to the use of light therapies and ICU design.

Recent findings: The American Thoracic Society recently published an official research statement highlighting key areas required to define and treat ICU SCD. Recent literature has been predominantly observational, describing how both critical illness and the ICU environment might impair normal sleep and impact circadian rhythm. Emerging consensus guidance outlines the need for standardized light metrics in clinical trials investigating effects of light therapies. A recent proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed improvement in delirium incidence and circadian alignment from ICU room redesign that included a dynamic lighting system (DLS).

Summary: Further investigation is needed to define the optimal physical properties of light therapy in the ICU environment as well as timing and duration of light treatments. Work in this area will inform future circadian-promoting design, as well as multicomponent nonpharmacological protocols, to mitigate ICU SCD with the objective of improving patient outcomes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.