View clinical trials related to Shock, Cardiogenic.
Filter by:To collect retrospective clinical outcomes related to acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock, acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock and compare current versus historical survival rates. To collect Inova Heart and Vascular Institute (IHVI) site specific outcomes before and after initiation of the Cardiogenic Shock team on January 1, 2017. To collect outcomes related to implementation of mechanical circulatory support versus no circulatory intervention and type of intervention (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) versus intracorporeal axial-flow (Impella). • Assess survival at three time points.
Failure of Weaning from ECMO is a serious complication, reaching an incidence between 29 and 58%. Inotrops are frequently used to help separating patient from ECMO. Levosimendan is an ino-dilatatory medication and was used in different clinical settings. The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefit with levosimendan when used in weaning process.
Cardiogenic shock is a frequent cause of admission and death in the intensive care unit. Mortality is about 50%. Once the etiologic treatment has been done, for instance coronary revascularization, management of the shock state is the cornerstone of the treatment. Norepinephrine is the first-line vasopressor therapy because of its minor effect on heart rhythm. Morever norepinephrine is a inotrope. In a previous study, we demonstrated that increasing the norepinephrine dose increases cardiac index, cardiac power index, SVO2 and tissue perfusion without acceleration of heart rate. Nevertheless, dobutamine remains the first-line inotropic treatment. Dobutamine has a positive chronotropic effect that might cause higher myocardial oxygen consumption. As a result, combination of vasopressor / inotrope is still controversial. The aim of this study was to compare hemodynamics and metabolics effects of 2 treatments strategies (norepinephrine dose increasing or addition of dobutamine) in patients with cardiogenic shock and optimised blood pressure level (MAP≥65 mmHg) under norepinephrine treatment. The secondary objectives were : - To evaluate the efficacy of the treatments on micro- and macrocirculation parameters - To evaluate the tolerance of the treatments - To evaluate the dose and the admistration's kinetics of the treatments
Refractory cardiogenic shock is characterized by a decreased in cardiac output with hypo-responsiveness to increasing doses of catecholamines resulting in a profound tissular ischemia. VAECMO, by restoring a circulatory flow, could be associated to a major reperfusion syndrome which may lead some patients to multiple organ failures and death. Pathophysiology of this syndrome includes 1/an hyper-adrenergic state secondary to the over activation of the sympathetic system and 2/ a major release of pro-inflammatory cytokines. As adrenoreceptors are also exhibited on immunes cells, the pro-inflammatory state might be enhanced by the over-activation of the sympathetic system.
International, observational registry to investigate the outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock. The primary aim of this study is to investigate the clinical outcome of patients in cardiogenic shock.
The classic physiopathology of cardiogenic shock is explained by a systolic ventricular failure, responsible for a decrease in cardiac output associated with high systemic vascular resistances (SVR). This theory is currently challenged in light of the data collected in the SHOCK study, which assessed outcome of early revascularization versus initial medical stabilization, in cardiogenic shock following myocardial infarction.13 A sub-study highlighted depressed SVR in the population with ischemic cardiogenic shock, related to a systemic inflammatory response syndrome.14 Furthermore, mean FEVG was 30% in the SHOCK trial,13 with a similar distribution with post myocardial infarction heart failure patients without signs of shock.15-19 Thus, alteration of myocardial contractility can be only moderate in cardiogenic shock and isn't the only cause responsible for the hemodynamic instability.20 Recent studies suggest the important roles of the peripheral vascular system and neurohormonal system in the genesis and prolongation of cardiogenic shock.12 Vasodilation caused by nitrous oxide synthase activation27 explains the absence of compensating vasoconstriction observed during the SHOCK trial13, and leads to decreased systemic and coronary perfusion, thus increasing myocardial ischemia and initial ventricular dysfunction. 28,29 Cotter et al. conducted an interesting study of hemodynamic evaluation of various cardiac conditions where they observed a significant variability in the peripheral vascular status, with systemic vascular resistances collapsed in certain patients (similar to those observed in septic shock) and rather close to normal or very high resistances in other patients.21 However these data were obtained from a selected group of patients without differentiating the etiology of cardiogenic shock. Finally, the majority of available studies were limited to cardiogenic shock whose etiology was myocardial infarction. Therapeutic management of cardiogenic shock is based in first intention on an inotropic support by Dobutamine.11,23 However, better outcomes on contractility and microcirculatory state have been observed with the use of a vasopressor support by Norepinephrine, suggesting the importance of SVR decreasing in genesis of cardiogenic shock.14,24 Recent reviews showed very few data on inotropic treatment and association with vasopressor support,22 hence the low level of recommendations in current guidelines.11,23 So far it is crucial to accurately characterize hemodynamic status and in particular the systemic vascular resistance for patients with cardiogenic shock. Important variabilities in hemodynamic profiles observed in Cooter's trial could explain the difficulty in defining an optimal therapeutic strategy. the investigators hypothesize that the hemodynamic profile, particularly SVR, of patients with cardiogenic shock is different depending on their etiology. Ischemic cardiogenic shock should be characterized by lower SVR, in relation to a major role of systemic inflammatory response syndrome. On the contrary, non-ischemic cardiogenic shock could be associated with normal or elevated SVR, and thus could explain the variability in distribution of SVR.
Study of immunosuppression biomarkers in patients with ARDS or cardiogenic shock with ECMO / ECLS, compared to patients with ARDS or cardiogenic shock without ECMO / ECLS
The investigators are interested in determining if there is a meaningful difference between two of the most commonly used medications used to improve the pumping function of the heart among critically ill patients admitted to the Coronary Care Unit (CCU) at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute (UOHI). To do this, the investigators will randomly assign patients who are felt to require use of these medications by their treating physicians to one of the two most commonly used agents in Canada: Milrinone or Dobutamine. Each patient will be closely monitored by their healthcare team, and their medication will be adjusted based on each patient's clinical status. Information from blood work (e.g. kidney and liver function, complete blood counts, and other markers of how effectively blood is circulating in the body), assessment of end-organ function (e.g. urine output, mentation), abnormal heart rhythms noted on monitoring and results of imaging studies (e.g. angiogram, echocardiograms.) will be collected for analysis. All patients will be followed for the duration of their hospital stay at UOHI.
The objective of this study is to determine ventricular loading conditions during and after PulseCath® iVAC2L support, and assess its impact on specific load dependent humoral factors and cardiac enzymes. These specific patterns are so far unknown and will be evaluated invasively.
The purpose of the study is to compare patients with cardiogenic shock who receive standard therapy plus therapeutic hypothermia (TH) to patients with cardiogenic shock who receive standard medical therapy alone in order to assess the safety of TH in patients with cardiogenic shock. This study will also help understand the physiologic effects of TH in patients with cardiogenic shock. This will be a pilot study to establish the initial safety of TH and to assess tolerability of TH in this patient population.