Advertisement

Cardiogenic Shock

  • Eric R. Bates
  • Mauro Moscucci
Part of the Developments in Cardiovascular Medicine book series (DICM, volume 216)

Abstract

The organization of coronary care units in the 1960’s to treat lethal arrhythmias and the development of thrombolytic therapy in the 1980’s to reduce infarct size are the two major therapeutic advances which have reduced mortality due to acute myocardial infarction (MI). Nevertheless, mortality rates associated with cardiogenic shock, the most common cause of death in patients hospitalized with acute MI, remain high and relatively unchanged by modern cardiac intensive care unit interventions including vasopressor and inotropic drug infusions, hemodynamic monitoring, and intraaortic balloon counterpulsation1. Preliminary evidence, however, suggests that there may be a survival advantage for selected patients who achieve sustained infarct artery patency and myocardial reperfusion. The economic cost of aggressive and prolonged intensive care, cardiac catheterization, andcoronary revascularization in a subgroup of patients with 65–80% hospital mortality rates has obvious medical resource utilization implications. It is the purpose of this chapter to review the acute cardiogenic shock syndrome and currenttreatment options. A risk stratification scheme will be suggested to assist in selecting those patients who might benefit from the more expensive interventions.

Keywords

Mitral Regurgitation Cardiogenic Shock Left Bundle Branch Block Multivessel Disease Infarct Zone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bates ER, Moscucci M. “Post-myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock”, in: Brown DL (ed), Cardiac Intensive Care, WB Saunders Co., Philadelphia 1998, pp215–217.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bates ER, Stomel RJ, Hochman JS, Ohman EM. The use of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation as an adjunct to reperfusion therapy in cardiogenic shock. Int J Cardiol (in press)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Flaherty JT, Becker LC, Weiss JL, et al. Results of a randomized prospective trial of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation and intravenous nitroglycerin in patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1985;6:434–446.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    O’Rourke MF, Norris RM, Campbell TJ, Chang VP, Sammel NL. Randomized controlled trial of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in early myocardial infarction with acute heart failure. Am J Cardiol 1981;47:815–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bates ER, Topol EJ. Limitations of thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction complicated by congestive heart failure and cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991;18:1077–1084.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prewitt RM, Gu S, Schick U, Ducas J. Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation enhances coronary thrombolysis induced by intravenous administration of a thrombolytic agent. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;23:794–798.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kovack P, Rasak MA, Bates ER, Ohman EM, Stomel RJ. Thrombolysis plus aortic counterpulsation: improved survival in patients who present to community hospitals with cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29:1454–1458.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hochman J, Boland J, Sleeper LA, et al. Current spectrum of cardiogenic shock and effects of early revascularization on mortality: results of an international registry. Circulation 1995;91:873–881.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric R. Bates
    • 1
  • Mauro Moscucci
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations