View clinical trials related to Shock, Cardiogenic.
Filter by:Cardiogenic shock is an uncommun pathology with a high mortatily rate around 45%. Veno arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is a temporary extracorporeal assist device which restore an adequate blood flow when a circulatory failure occures. VA-ECMO main indication is refractory cardiogenic shock whatever the etiology. Current medical care of terminal cardiac failure includes use of long-term mechanical circulatory support devices (MCSD) such as Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD). LVAD therapy may lead to heart transplant (bridge to transplantation), to recovery (bridge to recovery) or to permanent implantation (destination therapy). Few patients with refractory cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO may secondarily need a long term MCSD with LVAD. LVAD long-term heart assist showed interesting survival rate when implantation occured (71% after 2 years follow-up and 45% after 4 years follow-up) out of acute heart failure situation. There are only few datas concerning LVAD implantion during refractory cardiogenic shock, with a mortality between 20 to 50% in different studies. In this way, in comparaison of current few datas on the subject of LVAD implantation under VA-ECMO, the investigators (15 french-speacking centers) would retrospectively describe a large population.
Multicenter randomized double blind trial comparing intravenous cangrelor and oral ticagrelor in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by initial cardiogenic shock and treated with primary angioplasty.
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.
The purpose of this multicenter prospective study is to determine if the decision of transient circulatory support (TCS) in cardiogenic shock is relevant. TCS is a recommended treatment of refractory cardiogenic shock but precise indications are not definitively founded. Some studies described patients with TCS in order to establish mortality predictive scores (ENCOURAGE, SAVE), but no study has assessed the clinical relevance of the TCS decision yet. Therefore, The investigators propose to compare the characteristics and the follow-up of patients in acute cardiogenic shock, once TCS implantation was decided or not by the heart team.
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.
Retrospectively and prospectively enrolled patients with cardiogenic shock in domestic manifolds and investigated the current state of treatment and clinical features of cardiogenic shock in Koreans and identified the factors that could improve the prognosis and the use of IABP and ECMO And to investigate its therapeutic effect.