Search

BackgroundSeptic shock (SS) and cardiogenic shock (CS) are two types of circulatory shock with a different etiology. Several studies have described the molecular alterations in SS patients, whereas the molecular factors involved in CS have been poorly investigated. We aimed to assess in the whole blood of CS and SS patients, using septic patients without shock (SC) as controls, transcriptomic modifications that occur over 1 week after ICU admission and are common to the two types of shock.MethodsWe performed whole blood RNA sequencing in 21 SS, 11 CS, and 5 SC. In shock patients, blood samples were collected within 16 h from ICU admission (T1), 48 h after ICU admission (T2), and at day 7 or before discharge (T3). In controls, blood samples were available at T1 and T2. Gene expression changes over time have been studied in CS, SS, and SC separately with a paired analysis. Genes with p value

BackgroundThe ShockOmics study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02141607) is a multicenter prospective observational trial aimed at identifying new biomarkers of acute heart failure in circulatory shock, by means of a multiscale analysis of blood samples and hemodynamic data from subjects with circulatory shock.Methods and designNinety septic shock and cardiogenic shock patients will be recruited in three intensive care units (ICU) (Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium; Hospital Universitari Mutua Terrassa, Spain; Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Switzerland). Hemodynamic signals will be recorded every day for up to seven days from shock diagnosis (time T0). Clinical data and blood samples will be collected for analysis at: i) T1  5 and lactate levels ≥ 2 mmol/L. The exclusion criteria are: expected death within 24 h since ICU admission; > 4 units of red blood cells or >1 fresh frozen plasma transfused; active hematological malignancy; metastatic cancer; chronic immunodepression; pre-existing end stage renal disease requiring renal replacement therapy; recent cardiac surgery; Child-Pugh C cirrhosis; terminal illness. Enrollment will be preceded by the signature of the Informed Consent by the patient or his/her relatives and by the physician in charge. Three non-shock control groups will be included in the study: a) healthy blood donors (n = 5); b) septic patients (n = 10); c) acute myocardial infarction or patients with prolonged acute arrhythmia (n = 10). The hemodynamic data will be downloaded from the ICU monitors by means of dedicated software. The blood samples will be utilized for transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics ("-omics") analyses.DiscussionShockOmics will provide new insights into the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying shock as well as new biomarkers for the timely diagnosis of cardiac dysfunction in shock and quantitative indices for assisting the therapeutic management of shock patients.

In critical care, the monitoring is essential to the daily care of ICU patients, as the optimization of patient's hemodynamic, ventilation, temperature, nutrition, and metabolism is the key to improve patients' survival. Indeed, the decisive endpoint is the supply of oxygen to tissues according to their metabolic needs in order to fuel mitochondrial respiration and, therefore, life. In this sense, both oxygenation and perfusion must be monitored in the implementation of any resuscitation strategy. The emerging concept has been the enhancement of macrocirculation through sequential optimization of heart function and then judging the adequacy of perfusion/oxygenation on specific parameters in a strategy which was aptly coined "goal directed therapy." On the other hand, the maintenance of normal temperature is critical and should be regularly monitored. Regarding respiratory monitoring of ventilated ICU patients, it includes serial assessment of gas exchange, of respiratory system mechanics, and of patients' readiness for liberation from invasive positive pressure ventilation. Also, the monitoring of nutritional and metabolic care should allow controlling nutrients delivery, adequation between energy needs and delivery, and blood glucose. The present paper will describe the physiological basis, interpretation of, and clinical use of the major endpoints of perfusion/oxygenation adequacy and of temperature, respiratory, nutritional, and metabolic monitorings.

Introduction: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a leading cause of mortality. Despite decades of intensive research and several technological advancements, survival rates remain low. The integration of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) has been recognized as a promising approach in refractory OHCA. However, evidence from recent randomized controlled trials yielded contradictory results, and the criteria for selecting eligible patients are still a subject of debate. Methods: This study is a retrospective analysis of refractory OHCA patients treated with ECPR. All adult patients who received ECPR, according to the hospital algorithm, from 2013 to 2021 were included. Two different algorithms were used during this period. A "permissive" algorithm was used from 2013 to mid-2016. Subsequently, a revised algorithm, more "restrictive", based on international guidelines, was implemented from mid-2016 to 2021. Key differences between the two algorithms included reducing the no-flow time from less than three minutes to zero minutes (implying that the cardiac arrests must occur in the presence of a witness with immediate CPR initiation), reducing low-flow duration from 100 to 60 min, and lowering the age limit from 65 to 55 years. The aim of this study is to compare these two algorithms (permissive (1) and restrictive (2)) to determine if the use of a restrictive algorithm was associated with higher survival rates. Results: A total of 48 patients were included in this study, with 23 treated under Algorithm 1 and 25 under Algorithm 2. A significant difference in survival rate was observed in favor of the restrictive algorithm (9% vs. 68%, p < 0.05). Moreover, significant differences emerged between algorithms regarding the no-flow time (0 (0–5) vs. 0 (0–0) minutes, p < 0.05). Survivors had a significantly shorter no-flow and low-flow time (0 (0–0) vs. 0 (0–3) minutes, p < 0.01 and 40 (31–53) vs. 60 (45–80) minutes, p < 0.05), respectively. Conclusion: The present study emphasizes that a stricter selection of OHCA patients improves survival rates in ECPR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]