The clinical profile of patients with suspected cardiogenic shock due to predominant left ventricular failure: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries in cardiogenic shocK?

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the frequency of pulmonary congestion and associated clinical and hemodynamic findings in patients with suspected cardiogenic shock (CS).

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of pulmonary congestion in the setting of CS is uncertain.

METHODS: The 571 SHOCK Trial Registry patients with predominant left ventricular failure (LVF) were divided into four groups: Group A = no pulmonary congestion/no hypoperfusion = 14 (3%), Group B = isolated pulmonary congestion = 32 (6%), Group C = isolated hypoperfusion = 158 (28%) and Group D = congestion with hypoperfusion = 367 (64%). Statistical comparisons between Group C and D only, with regard to patient demographics, hemodynamics, treatment and outcome, were made.

RESULTS: A significant proportion of patients with shock had no pulmonary congestion (Group C = 28%, 95% CI, 24% to 31%). Age and gender in this group were similar to Group D. Group C patients were less likely to have a prior MI (p = 0.028), congestive heart failure (p = 0.005) and renal insufficiency (p = 0.032), and the index MI was less likely to be anterior (p = 0.044). Cardiac output, cardiac index and ejection fraction were similar for the two groups but pulmonary capillary wedge pressure was slightly lower for Group C (22 vs. 24 mm Hg, p = 0.012). Treatment with thrombolysis, angioplasty and bypass surgery was similar in the two groups. In-hospital mortality rates for Groups C and D were 70% and 60%, respectively (p = 0.036). After adjustment, this difference was no longer statistically significant (p = 0.153).

CONCLUSIONS: Absence of pulmonary congestion at initial clinical evaluation does not exclude a diagnosis of CS due to predominant LVF and is not associated with a better prognosis.