of mechanical support, and renal replacement therapies should be considered. Moreover, the insertion of a pulmonary artery catheter may be considered.
Cardiogenic shock due to right ventricular failure
This entity has not been well described and devices have been used mostly anecdotally. Percutaneous right ventricular support devices (i.e. extracorporeal right atrial to pulmonary artery pump, intravenous microaxial pump, and veno‐venous ECMO) do exist and are presented in another chapter of this book. Clinical studies on patient risk stratification, hemodynamic/clinical evolution and clinical trials on outcomes are eagerly anticipated.
Cardiogenic shock due to pericardial tamponade
This entity has been traditionally treated with emergency pericardiocentesis. Echocardiography is typically used to establish the diagnosis. Although this can be performed under critical conditions with only body landmarks (needle insertion in subxiphoid area with shallow aim towards the left mid‐clavicular line), it is mostly performed with echocardiographic and fluoroscopic guidance. The echocardiographer can image the pericardial effusion from subxiphoid or apical window and identify the easiest projection to allow a straight needle track. Under local anesthesia (sedation can be rarely tolerated in such patients) and with patient positioned with a 20–40 ° upper body incline, the needle can be inserted parallel to the echo‐beam and should then be anticipated to reach the pericardial space at the depth identified by the imager. If a pressure transducer is available and zeroed at a 50 mmHg scale set‐up, it may be utilized to measure the pericardial pressure before and after fluid removal. Hemodynamic response is typically immediate upon removal of the fluid. On the other hand, shock/hypotension due to multi‐factorial cases may be associated with sizeable pericardial effusion and minor echocardiographic signs of tamponade; in such cases, the rather low and phasic pericardial pressure waveform will be indicative (to rule out a pericardial tamponade as the primary cause of hemodynamic collapse). A surgical pericardial window may be undertaken in mainly posterior effusions or in complicated cases for pericardiocentesis (or in those that a pericardial biopsy is of major diagnostic importance) [41].
Conclusions
In conclusion, the incidence of cardiogenic shock is declining, but its clinical impact remains as significant as ever. Vasopressors and inotropes can be used to improve blood pressure and cardiac output, but they cause an increase in systemic vascular resistance and an increase in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure and increase cardiac work and cardiac oxygen consumption. Therefore, the use of left‐ventricular assist devices is a promising treatment modality that is currently being investigated in larger randomized controlled trials. From clinical investigation point of view, randomized trials have been small‐sized and scarce in this subject due to the very critical presenting condition, and related enormous difficulties in appropriate screening, risk‐stratifying and consenting.
Interactive multiple choice questions are available for this chapter on www.wiley.com/go/dangas/cardiology
References
1 1 Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. New Engl J Med. 1999; 341(9):625–34.
2 2 Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Godfrey E, et al. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK: an international randomized trial of emergency PTCA/CABG‐trial design. The SHOCK Trial Study Group. Am Heart J. 1999; 137(2):313–21.
3 3 Thiele H, Schuler G, Neumann FJ, et al. Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: design and rationale of the Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II (IABP‐SHOCK II) trial. Am Heart J. 2012; 163(6):938–45.
4 4 Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. PCI Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377(25):2419–32.
5 5 Baran DA, Grines CL, Bailey S, et al. SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: This document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in April 2019. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 94(1):29–37.
6 6 Hands ME, Rutherford JD, Muller JE, et al. The in‐hospital development of cardiogenic shock after myocardial infarction: incidence, predictors of occurrence, outcome and prognostic factors. The MILIS Study Group. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1989; 14(1):40–6; discussion 7–8.
7 7 Goldberg RJ, Samad NA, Yarzebski J, et al. Temporal trends in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1999; 340(15):1162–8.
8 8 Babaev A, Frederick PD, Pasta DJ, et al. Trends in management and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. JAMA. 2005; 294(4):448–54.
9 9 Jeger RV, Radovanovic D, Hunziker PR, et al. Ten‐year trends in the incidence and treatment of cardiogenic shock. Annals of Int Med. 2008; 149(9):618–26.
10 10 Goldberg RJ, Spencer FA, Gore JM, et al. Thirty‐year trends (1975 to 2005) in the magnitude of, management of, and hospital death rates associated with cardiogenic shock in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a population‐based perspective. Circulation. 2009; 119(9):1211–9.
11 11 Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intra‐aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP‐SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open‐label trial. The Lancet. 2013; 382(9905):1638–45.
12 12 French JK, Armstrong PW, Cohen E, et al. Cardiogenic shock and heart failure post‐percutaneous coronary intervention in ST‐elevation myocardial infarction: observations from “Assessment of Pexelizumab in Acute Myocardial Infarction”. Am Heart J. 2011; 162(1):89–97.
13 13 Hasdai D, Califf RM, Thompson TD, et al. Predictors of cardiogenic shock after thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 35(1):136–43.
14 14 American College of Emergency P, Society for Cardiovascular A, Interventions, O'Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST‐elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61(4):e78–140.
15 15 Sleeper LA, Ramanathan K, Picard MH, et al. Functional status and quality of life after emergency revascularization for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 46(2):266–73.
16 16 White HD, Assmann SF, Sanborn TA, et al. Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting after acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial. Circulation. 2005; 112(13):1992–2001.
17 17 Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. One‐Year Outcomes after PCI Strategies in Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379(18):1699–710.
18 18 Neumann FJ, Sousa‐Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019; 40(2):87–165.
19 19 Ouweneel DM, Henriques JP. Percutaneous cardiac support devices for cardiogenic shock: current indications and recommendations. Heart. 2012;
