View clinical trials related to Cardiogenic Shock.
Filter by:Purpose of this study is to assess whether measurements obtained through speckle tracking (LV longitudinal and circumferential strain, RV longitudinal strain) can give additional information in identifying patients who develop adverse outcomes 30 days post successfully weaning from VA ECMO (liberation not for palliation). It is a prospective observational non-blinded pilot study. In order to achieve this purpose, speckle tracking analysis will be performed on the recorded images of the transoesophageal echocardiogram performed during the last VA ECMO weaning study of patients defined ready for VA ECMO liberation. VA ECMO liberation will be based according to LVOT VTI increase and clinical judgment during patients' VA ECMO weaning study. It will be assessed whether the population experiencing the outcomes of interest (death within 30 days from VA ECMO liberation, hospital admission for a new episode of cardiogenic shock or heart failure within 30 days from VA ECMO liberation, need for new mechanical circulatory support within 30 days from VA ECMO liberation) and the population not experiencing these outcomes have different values of strain (LV longitudinal and circumferential and RV longitudinal strain) during the weaning study.
This is a randomized, double blind, single center trial to study of the effects of Ivabradine vs. Placebo on patients hospitalized for Stage D heart failure (HF)/ and cardiogenic shock (CS) who will require continuous infusion of Dobutamine and have developed sinus tachycardia (ST) (heart rate >100 beats/min). The aim of the study will be to assess the potential of Ivabradine to slow ST and improve hemodynamics in patients with stage D HF/CS on Dobutamine treatment.
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.
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.
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a temporary mechanical circulatory support device for cardiogenic shock (CS) patients. During ECMO support, renal replacement therapy (RRT) facilitate more rapid metabolic or uremic control and more effective prevention and management of fluid overload which happened in critical state. CS patients who are likely to receive ECMO support will be enrolled and randomized with a 1:1 allocation to a simultaneous RRT arm vs. standard care arm. 1. The patients in the simultaneous RRT arm will receive RRT when ECMO is commenced. 2. The patients in the standard care arm will not receive RRT when ECMO is commenced. Only when a patient demonstrates AKI and fulfills any one of the criteria of the conventional RRT indication during ECMO support or after ECMO weaning, conventional-indication RRT would be delivered. The primary outcome is all-cause 30-day mortality after ECMO is commenced
The aim of the study is knowing the prognostic value of circulating miRNAs in patients admitted to our hospital with STEMI complicated with cardiogenic shock.
We would like to investigate novel diagnostic methods or biomarkers to early predict the success of ECMO therapy for cardiogenic shock patients during the early stage after ECMO treatment.
The purpose of the study is to compare the efficacy of levosimendan with that of dobutamine in patients with unstable hemodynamics (shock).