Search

Abstract Cardiogenic shock is usually defined as primary cardiac dysfunction with low cardiac output leading to critical organ hypoperfusion, and tissue hypoxia, resulting in high mortality rate between 40% and 50% despite recent advances. Many studies have now evidenced that cardiogenic shock not only involves systemic macrocirculation, such as blood pressure, left ventricular ejection fraction, or cardiac output, but also involves significant systemic microcirculatory abnormalities which seem strongly associated with the outcome. Although microcirculation has been widely studied in the context of septic shock showing heterogeneous alterations with clear evidence of macro and microcirculation uncoupling, there is now a growing body of literature focusing on cardiogenic shock states. Even if there is currently no consensus regarding the treatment of microcirculatory disturbances in cardiogenic shock, some treatments seem to show a benefit. Furthermore, a better understanding of the underlying pathophysiology may provide hypotheses for future studies aiming to improve cardiogenic shock prognosis. Graphical Abstract

Abstract Delirium after surgery and in the intensive care unit (ICU) remains a challenge for patients, families, and caregivers. Over the years, many promising biomarkers have been investigated as potential instruments for risk stratification of delirium. This review aimed to identify and assess the clinical usefulness of candidate serum biomarkers associated with hospital delirium in patients aged 60 years and older. We performed a time-unlimited review of publications indexed in PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE databases until June 2019 that evaluated baseline and/or longitudinal biomarker measurements in patients suffering from delirium at some point during their hospital stay. A total of 32 studies were included in this review reporting information on 7610 patients. Of these 32 studies, twenty-four studies reported data from surgical patients including four studies in ICU cohorts, five studies reported data from medical patients (1026 patients), and three studies reported data from a mixed cohort (1086 patients), including one study in an ICU cohort. Findings confirm restricted clinical usefulness to predict or diagnose delirium due to limited evidence on which biomarkers can be used and limited availability due to non-routine use.

Abstract Background To determine the preventive and therapeutic effect of dexmedetomidine on intensive care unit (ICU) delirium. Methods The literature search using PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed (August 1, 2018) to detect all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult ICU patients receiving dexmedetomidine. Articles were included if they assessed the influence of dexmedetomidine compared to a sedative agent on incidence of ICU delirium or treatment of this syndrome. Accordingly, relevant articles were allocated to the following two groups: (1) articles that assessed the delirium incidence (incidence comparison) or articles that assessed the treatment of delirium (treatment comparison). Incidence of delirium and delirium resolution were the primary outcomes. We combined treatment effects comparing dexmedetomidine versus (1) placebo, (2) standard sedatives, and (3) opioids in random-effects meta-analyses. Risk of bias for each included RCT was assessed following Cochrane standards. Results The literature search resulted in 28 articles (25 articles/4975 patients for the incidence comparison and three articles/166 patients for the treatment comparison). In the incidence comparison, heterogeneity was present in different subgroups. Administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with significantly lower overall incidence of delirium when compared to placebo (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.39–0.70; I 2 = 37%), standard sedatives (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.46–0.86; I 2 = 69%), as well as to opioids (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.44–0.83; I 2 = 0%). Use of dexmedetomidine significantly increased the risks of bradycardia and hypotension. Limited data were available on circulatory insufficiency and mortality. In the treatment comparison, the comparison drugs in the three RCTs were placebo, midazolam, and haloperidol. The resolution of delirium was measured differently in each study. Two out of the three studies indicated clear favorable effects for dexmedetomidine (i.e., compared to placebo and midazolam). The study comparing dexmedetomidine with haloperidol was a pilot study (n = 20) with high variability in the results. Conclusion Findings suggest that dexmedetomidine reduces incidence and duration of ICU delirium. Furthermore, our systematic searches show that there is limited evidence if a delirium shall be treated with dexmedetomidine.