View clinical trials related to Shock, Cardiogenic.
Filter by:The most frequent access site for veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is the common femoral artery (CFA), using either an open or percutaneous technique. Currently, percutaneous closure devices for femoral arterial access sites are approved for use only when a 10-F or smaller sheath has been used. However, the availability of the Perclose ProGlide (Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL) device has now made it possible to perform percutaneous vessel closure after using larger sheaths.The preclose technique using Perclose ProGlide, has been widely used in endovascular procedures. In a prospective randomized study, complication rates at the access site were similar in patients who underwent total percutaneous access (including percutaneous arteriotomy closure) than in those who underwent surgical cutdown and subsequent surgical closure. Total percutaneous closure of femoral arterial access sites increases patient comfort and decreases the rate of wound infections and lymphatic fistulas.[6,7] Furthermore, patients are mobilized and discharged earlier following the use of closure devices than with compression alone. Despite the above observations, no data have been published regarding percutaneous closure of femoral artery access sites in patients who have undergone VA-ECMO. In this study, we evaluated the safety and feasibility of a percutaneous closure technique using Perclose ProGlide to close the CFA access site after VA-ECMO.
The investigators are doing this study and medical record review to measure simultaneous pressure and volume of the heart called pressure volumes loops before and after ventricular assist device placement for cardiogenic shock ( a severe form of heart failure). Standard of care measurements will be the sole measure of clinical determination. The investigators are measuring these PV loops to help determine which patients heart have recovered and can have the ventricular assist device removed. The investigators are also using the PV loop to indicate/correlate with certain outcomes to predict the need for LVAD patients to require additional support in the form of a right ventricular assist device. The medical record review will be performed pre-operatively, intra-operatively, and post-operatively until the day of discharge.
Cardiogenic shock (CS) mortality remains high (40%). Despite their frequent use, few clinical outcome data are available to guide the initial selection of vasoactive drug therapies in patients with CS. Based on experts' opinions, the combination of norepinephrine-dobutamine is generally recommended as a first line strategy. Inotropic agents increase myocardial contractility, thereby increasing cardiac output. Dobutamine is commonly recommended to be the inotropic agent of choice and levosimendan is generally used following dobutamine failure. It may represent an ideal agent in cardiogenic shock, since it improves myocardial contractility without increasing cAMP or calcium concentration. At present, there are no convincing data to support a specific inotropic agent in patients with cardiogenic shock. Our hypothesis is that the early use of levosimendan, by enabling the discontinuation of dobutamine, would accelerate the resolution of signs of low cardiac output and facilitate myocardial recovery.
Extracorporeal life support is increasingly used after cardiac surgery. Despite improved technology, outcome still remains poor. This retrospective multicenter cohort study aims to find the (risk) factors associated with the poor prognosis of these patients. Adult patients who received ECLS after cardiac surgery between 2000 and 2018 are eligible for inclusion
Recent studies have suggested that the use of left ventricular ejection volume index calculation may aid in the hemodynamic management of critically ill patients. However, a prospective and randomized comparison in patients with heart failure for inotropic dose adjustment has not been described. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ejection volume index versus liberal strategy in adjusting dobutamine dose in patients with heart failure and low cardiac output. Methodology: A unicentric, randomized and prospective study will be performed in a comparative manner. Hospital data (test results, medical outcomes, dobutamine dose, complications) of patients will be analyzed for safety and effectiveness. Expected results: The use of ejection volume index is not inferior to the liberal strategy in the initial adjustment of the dose of dobutamine in patients with heart failure.
This is a randomized 1:1 blinded study that evaluate in acute left heart failure-cardiogenic shock patients if ivabradine treatment can reduce pulmonary wedge pressure, without inducing a significant or relevant reduction in cardiac output or increasing the risk of arterial hypotension and with the benefit of allowing a faster titration of heart failure drugs.
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 (MAPā„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