Search

Background: It is common for clinicians to use the pulmonary artery diastolic pressure (PADP) as a surrogate for the pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP). Here, we determine the validity of this relationship in patients with various phenotypes of cardiogenic shock (CS)., Methods and Results: In this analysis of the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network registry, we identified 1225 people admitted with CS who received pulmonary artery catheters. Linear regression, Bland-Altman and receiver operator characteristic analyses were performed to determine the strength of the association between PADP and PCWP in patients with left-, right-, biventricular, and other non-myocardia phenotypes of CS (eg, arrhythmia, valvular stenosis, tamponade). There was a moderately strong correlation between PADP and PCWP in the total population (r = 0.64, n = 1225) and in each CS phenotype, except for right ventricular CS, for which the correlation was weak (r = 0.43, n = 71). Additionally, we found that a PADP ≥ 24 mmHg can be used to infer a PCWP ≥ 18 mmHg with ≥ 90% confidence in all but the right ventricular CS phenotype., Conclusions: This analysis validates the practice of using PADP as a surrogate for PCWP in most patients with CS; however, it should generally be avoided in cases of right ventricular-predominant CS., Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors report no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a time-sensitive and often fatal condition. To address this issue, many centers have developed multidisciplinary shock teams with a common goal of expediting the recognition and treatment of CS. In this review, we examine the mission, structure, implementation, and outcomes reported by these early shock teams., Recent Findings: To date, there have been four observational shock team analyses, each providing unique insight into the utility of the shock team. The limited available data supports that shock teams are associated with improved CS mortality. However, there is considerable operational heterogeneity among shock teams, and randomized data assessing their value and best practices in both local and regional care models are needed., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Prior studies have shown worse outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) who have reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), but the association between other transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) findings and mortality in CS patients remains uncertain. We hypothesized that Doppler TTE measurements would outperform LVEF for risk stratification., Methods: Retrospective analysis of cardiac intensive care unit patients with an admission diagnosis of CS and a TTE within 1 day of admission. Hospital survivors and inpatient deaths were compared, and multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze the associations between TTE variables and hospital mortality., Results: We included 1,085 patients, with a median age of 69.5 (59.6, 77.5) years; 37% were females and 62% had an acute coronary syndrome. Most patients (66%) had moderate or severe left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction, and 48% had moderate or severe right ventricular (RV) systolic dysfunction. Hospital mortality occurred in 31%, and inpatient deaths had a lower median LVEF (29% vs. 35%, P < 0.001). Patients with mild or no LV or RV dysfunction were at lower risk of adjusted hospital mortality (P < 0.01). The LV outflow tract (LVOT) velocity-time integral (VTI) was the single best predictor of hospital mortality. After multivariable adjustment, both the LVEF and LVOT VTI remained strongly associated with hospital mortality (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Early comprehensive Doppler TTE can provide important prognostic insights in CS patients, highlighting its potential utility in clinical practice. The LVOT VTI, reflecting forward flow, is an important measurement to obtain on bedside TTE., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 by the Shock Society.)