Aims Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition burdened by mortality in up to 50% of cases. Few recommendations exist with intermediate-low level of evidence on CS management and no data on adherence across centres exist. We performed a survey to frame CS management at multinational level. Methods and results An international cross-sectional survey was created and approved by European Society of Cardiology-Acute Cardiovascular Care Association board. A total of 337 responses from 60 countries were obtained. Data were assessed by the hospital level of care of the participants. The most common cause of CS was AMI (AMI-CS-79.9%) with significant difference according to hospital levels (P = 0.001), followed by acutely decompensated heart failure (HF) (13.4%), myocarditis (3.5%), and de novo HF (1.75%). In 37.8%, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is performed to all CS-patients as a standard approach, whereas 42.1% used PCI if electrocardiogram suggestive of ischaemia and 20.1% only if Universal definition of myocardial infarction criteria are fulfilled. Management (catecholamine titration and mechanical circulatory support escalation) is driven by mean arterial pressure (87.1%), echocardiography (84.4%), and lactate levels (83.4%). Combination of vasopressor and inotrope is chosen with the same frequency (37.7%) than inotrope alone as first-line pharmacological therapy (differences amongst hospital levels; P > 0.5). Noradrenaline is first-line vasopressor (89.9%) followed by dopamine (8.5%), whereas dobutamine is confirmed as the first-line inotrope (65.9%). Conclusion Cardiogenic shock management is heterogenous and often not adherent to current recommendations. Quality improvement on an international level with evidence-based quality indicators should be developed to standardize diagnostic and therapeutic pathways.

Epidemiology, monitoring, and treatment strategy in cardiogenic shock. A multinational cross-sectional survey of ESC-acute cardiovascular care association research section

Tavazzi, Guido;
2022-01-01

Abstract

Aims Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition burdened by mortality in up to 50% of cases. Few recommendations exist with intermediate-low level of evidence on CS management and no data on adherence across centres exist. We performed a survey to frame CS management at multinational level. Methods and results An international cross-sectional survey was created and approved by European Society of Cardiology-Acute Cardiovascular Care Association board. A total of 337 responses from 60 countries were obtained. Data were assessed by the hospital level of care of the participants. The most common cause of CS was AMI (AMI-CS-79.9%) with significant difference according to hospital levels (P = 0.001), followed by acutely decompensated heart failure (HF) (13.4%), myocarditis (3.5%), and de novo HF (1.75%). In 37.8%, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is performed to all CS-patients as a standard approach, whereas 42.1% used PCI if electrocardiogram suggestive of ischaemia and 20.1% only if Universal definition of myocardial infarction criteria are fulfilled. Management (catecholamine titration and mechanical circulatory support escalation) is driven by mean arterial pressure (87.1%), echocardiography (84.4%), and lactate levels (83.4%). Combination of vasopressor and inotrope is chosen with the same frequency (37.7%) than inotrope alone as first-line pharmacological therapy (differences amongst hospital levels; P > 0.5). Noradrenaline is first-line vasopressor (89.9%) followed by dopamine (8.5%), whereas dobutamine is confirmed as the first-line inotrope (65.9%). Conclusion Cardiogenic shock management is heterogenous and often not adherent to current recommendations. Quality improvement on an international level with evidence-based quality indicators should be developed to standardize diagnostic and therapeutic pathways.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11571/1476964
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 11
social impact