Current opinion in cardiology · 2022
Role of medical management of cardiogenic shock in the era of mechanical circulatory support.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Blumer Vanessa, Marbach Jeffrey, Veasey Tara, Kanwar Manreet
Аннотация
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The goal of this review is to summarize the current knowledge on the role of medical management of cardiogenic shock in the era of mechanical circulatory support based on important lessons from clinical trials and routine clinical practice, with a focus on providing practical recommendations that can improve contemporary in-hospital management.
RECENT FINDINGS: Despite an increasing number of invasive therapies being used to manage cardiogenic shock, evidence-based treatment regimens known to improve outcomes are limited. Medical management of cardiogenic shock includes pharmacological interventions aimed at optimizing determinants of cardiac output-contractility, preload, afterload, and heart rate. In this regard, inotropes and vasopressors remain cornerstone therapies for the management of cardiogenic shock. Norepinephrine has shown potential vasopressor advantage with compared with dopamine, and although milrinone and dobutamine are both considered appropriate first-line inotropes, there is limited data to guide selection, and a recent randomized clinical trial found no significant differences in the treatment of cardiogenic shock.
SUMMARY: In the absence of an evidence-based management approach to cardiogenic shock, clinical guidelines are based on expert opinion and routine clinical practice patterns. Further studies focusing on clinical outcomes among specific cardiogenic shock phenotypes are needed to better assess the clinical efficacy of these agents.
RECENT FINDINGS: Despite an increasing number of invasive therapies being used to manage cardiogenic shock, evidence-based treatment regimens known to improve outcomes are limited. Medical management of cardiogenic shock includes pharmacological interventions aimed at optimizing determinants of cardiac output-contractility, preload, afterload, and heart rate. In this regard, inotropes and vasopressors remain cornerstone therapies for the management of cardiogenic shock. Norepinephrine has shown potential vasopressor advantage with compared with dopamine, and although milrinone and dobutamine are both considered appropriate first-line inotropes, there is limited data to guide selection, and a recent randomized clinical trial found no significant differences in the treatment of cardiogenic shock.
SUMMARY: In the absence of an evidence-based management approach to cardiogenic shock, clinical guidelines are based on expert opinion and routine clinical practice patterns. Further studies focusing on clinical outcomes among specific cardiogenic shock phenotypes are needed to better assess the clinical efficacy of these agents.