Hollenberg, Steven M.

OBJECTIVES: To review a contemporary approach to the management of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). DATA SOURCES: We reviewed salient medical literature regarding CS. STUDY SELECTION: We included professional society scientific statements and clinical studies examining outcomes in patients with CS, with a focus on randomized clinical trials. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted salient study results and scientific statement recommendations regarding the management of CS. DATA SYNTHESIS: Professional society recommendations were integrated with evaluated studies. CONCLUSIONS: CS results in short-term mortality exceeding 30% despite standard therapy. While acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been the focus of most CS research, heart failure-related CS now predominates at many centers. CS can present with a wide spectrum of shock severity, including patients who are normotensive despite ongoing hypoperfusion. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention Shock Classification categorizes patients with or at risk of CS according to shock severity, which predicts mortality. The CS population includes a heterogeneous mix of phenotypes defined by ventricular function, hemodynamic profile, biomarkers, and other clinical variables. Integrating the shock severity and CS phenotype with nonmodifiable risk factors for mortality can guide clinical decision-making and prognostication. Identifying and treating the cause of CS is crucial for success, including early culprit vessel revascularization for AMI. Vasopressors and inotropes titrated to restore arterial pressure and perfusion are the cornerstone of initial medical therapy for CS. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is indicated for appropriately selected patients as a bridge to recovery, decision, durable MCS, or heart transplant. Randomized controlled trials have not demonstrated better survival with the routine use of temporary MCS in patients with CS. Accordingly, a multidisciplinary team-based approach should be used to tailor the type of hemodynamic support to each individual CS patient’s needs based on shock severity, phenotype, and exit strategy.

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for adults with acute liver failure (ALF) or acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) in the ICU. DESIGN: The guideline panel comprised 27 members with expertise in aspects of care of the critically ill patient with liver failure or methodology. We adhered to the Society of Critical Care Medicine standard operating procedures manual and conflict-of-interest policy. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the panel, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development. INTERVENTIONS: In part 2 of this guideline, the panel was divided into four subgroups: neurology, peri-transplant, infectious diseases, and gastrointestinal groups. We developed and selected Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) questions according to importance to patients and practicing clinicians. For each PICO question, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis where applicable. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence to decision framework to facilitate recommendations formulation as strong or conditional. We followed strict criteria to formulate best practice statements. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We report 28 recommendations (from 31 PICO questions) on the management ALF and ACLF in the ICU. Overall, five were strong recommendations, 21 were conditional recommendations, two were best-practice statements, and we were unable to issue a recommendation for five questions due to insufficient evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary, international experts formulated evidence-based recommendations for the management ALF and ACLF patients in the ICU, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on low quality and indirect evidence.

Patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) are often in shock and require hemodynamic support. Identifying and addressing the pathophysiology mechanisms operating in an individual patient is crucial to achieving a successful outcome, while initiating circulatory support therapy to restore adequate tissue perfusion. Vasopressors and inotropes are the cornerstone of supportive medical therapy for shock, in addition to fluid resuscitation when indicated. Timely initiation of optimal vasopressor and inotrope therapy is essential for patients with shock, with the ultimate goals of restoring effective tissue perfusion in order to normalize cellular metabolism. Use of vasoactive agents for hemodynamic support of patients with shock should take both arterial pressure and tissue perfusion into account when choosing therapeutic interventions. For most patients with shock, including cardiogenic or septic shock, norepinephrine (NE) is an appropriate choice as a first-line vasopressor titrated to achieve an adequate arterial pressure due to a lower risk of adverse events than other catecholamine vasopressors. If tissue and organ perfusion remain inadequate, an inotrope such as dobutamine may be added to increase cardiac output to a sufficient level that meets tissue demand. Low doses of epinephrine or dopamine may be used for inotropic support, but high doses of these drugs carry an excessive risk of adverse events when used for vasopressor support and should be avoided. When NE alone is inadequate to achieve an adequate arterial pressure, addition of a noncatecholamine vasopressor such as vasopressin or angiotensin-II is reasonable, in addition to rescue therapies that may improve vasopressor responsiveness. In this review, we discuss the pharmacology and evidence-based use of vasopressor and inotrope drugs in critically ill patients, with a focus on the CICU population.

Objectives: To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for adults with acute or acute on chronic liver failure in the ICU. Design: The guideline panel comprised 29 members with expertise in aspects of care of the critically ill patient with liver failure and/or methodology. The Society of Critical Care Medicine standard operating procedures manual and conflict-of-interest policy were followed throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the panel, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development. Setting: The panel was divided into nine subgroups: cardiovascular, hematology, pulmonary, renal, endocrine and nutrition, gastrointestinal, infection, perioperative, and neurology. Interventions: We developed and selected population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes questions according to importance to patients and practicing clinicians. For each population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes question, we conducted a systematic review aiming to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence whenever applicable, and assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence to decision framework to facilitate recommendations formulation as strong or conditional. We followed strict criteria to formulate best practice statements. Measurements and Main Results: In this article, we report 29 recommendations (from 30 population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes questions) on the management acute or acute on chronic liver failure in the ICU, related to five groups (cardiovascular, hematology, pulmonary, renal, and endocrine). Overall, six were strong recommendations, 19 were conditional recommendations, four were best-practice statements, and in two instances, the panel did not issue a recommendation due to insufficient evidence. Conclusions: Multidisciplinary international experts were able to formulate evidence-based recommendations for the management acute or acute on chronic liver failure in the ICU, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on low-quality indirect evidence.

Background: Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices provide hemodynamic assistance for shock refractory to pharmacological treatment. Most registries have focused on single devices or specific etiologies of shock, limiting data regarding overall practice patterns with temporary MCS in cardiac intensive care units. Methods: The CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) is a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in North America. Between September 2017 and September 2018, each center (n=16) contributed a 2-month snapshot of consecutive medical CICU admissions. Results: Of the 270 admissions using temporary MCS, 33% had acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (CS), 31% had CS not related to acute myocardial infarction, 11% had mixed shock, and 22% had an indication other than shock. Among all 585 admissions with CS or mixed shock, 34% used temporary MCS during the CICU stay with substantial variation between centers (range: 17%–50%). The most common temporary MCS devices were intraaortic balloon pumps (72%), Impella (17%), and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (11%), although intraaortic balloon pump use also varied between centers (range: 40%–100%). Patients managed with intraaortic balloon pump versus other forms of MCS (advanced MCS) had lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and less severe metabolic derangements. Illness severity was similar at high- versus low-MCS utilizing centers and at centers with more advanced MCS use. Conclusions: There is wide variation in the use of temporary MCS among patients with shock in tertiary CICUs. While hospital-level variation in temporary MCS device selection is not explained by differences in illness severity, patient-level variation appears to be related, at least in part, to illness severity.

Background Clinical investigations of shock in cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) have primarily focused on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS). Few studies have evaluated the full spectrum of shock in contemporary CICUs. Methods and Results The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter network of advanced CICUs in North America. Anytime between September 2017 and September 2018, each center (n=16) contributed a 2-month snap-shot of all consecutive medical admissions to the CICU. Data were submitted to the central coordinating center (TIMI Study Group, Boston, MA). Shock was defined as sustained systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg with end-organ dysfunction ascribed to the hypotension. Shock type was classified by site investigators as cardiogenic, distributive, hypovolemic, or mixed. Among 3049 CICU admissions, 677 (22%) met clinical criteria for shock. Shock type was varied, with 66% assessed as cardiogenic shock (CS), 7% as distributive, 3% as hypovolemic, 20% as mixed, and 4% as unknown. Among patients with CS (n=450), 30% had AMICS, 18% had ischemic cardiomyopathy without AMI, 28% had nonischemic cardiomyopathy, and 17% had a cardiac cause other than primary myocardial dysfunction. Patients with mixed shock had cardiovascular comorbidities similar to patients with CS. The median CICU stay was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.5–8.1 days) for AMICS, 4.3 days (IQR, 2.1–8.5 days) for CS not related to AMI, and 5.8 days (IQR, 2.9–10.0 days) for mixed shock versus 1.9 days (IQR, 1.0–3.6) for patients without shock ( P <0.01 for each). Median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were higher in patients with mixed shock (10; IQR, 6–13) versus AMICS (8; IQR, 5–11) or CS without AMI (7; IQR, 5–11; each P <0.01). In-hospital mortality rates were 36% (95% CI, 28%–45%), 31% (95% CI, 26%–36%), and 39% (95% CI, 31%–48%) in AMICS, CS without AMI, and mixed shock, respectively. Conclusions The epidemiology of shock in contemporary advanced CICUs is varied, and AMICS now represents less than one-third of all CS. Despite advanced therapies, mortality in CS and mixed shock remains high. Investigation of management strategies and new therapies to treat shock in the CICU should take this epidemiology into account.