El shock cardiogénico como problema de salud. Fisiología, clasificación y detección / Cardiogenic shock as a health issue: Physiology, classification, and detection

El shock cardiogénico (SC) es un síndrome heterogéneo con elevada mortalidad y creciente incidencia. Se trata de una situación en la que existe un desequilibrio entre las necesidades tisulares de oxígeno y la capacidad del sistema cardiovascular para satisfacerlas debido a una disfunción cardiaca aguda. Históricamente, los síndromes coronarios agudos han sido la causa principal de SC; sin embargo, los casos no isquémicos han aumentado en incidencia. Su fisiopatología implica el daño isquémico del miocardio, una respuesta tanto simpática como del sistema renina-angiotensina-aldosterona e inflamatoria, que perpetúan la situación de hipoperfusión tisular conduciendo finalmente a la disfunción multiorgánica. La caracterización de los pacientes con SC mediante una valoración triaxial y la universalización de la escala SCAI ha permitido una estandarización de la estratificación de la gravedad del SC que, sumada a la detección precoz y el enfoque Hub and Spoke, podrían contribuir a mejorar el pronóstico de los pacientes en SC. (AU)

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a heterogeneous syndrome with high mortality and increasing incidence. It is a condition where there is an imbalance between tissue oxygen demands and the cardiovascular system's capacity to meet them due to acute cardiac dysfunction. Historically, acute coronary syndromes have been the primary cause of CS; however, non-ischemic cases have seen a rise in incidence. Its pathophysiology involves myocardial ischemic damage, a sympathetic, renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system, and inflammatory response, perpetuating the situation of tissue hypoperfusion, ultimately leading to multiorgan dysfunction. Characterizing CS patients through a triaxial assessment and the widespread use of the SCAI scale has allowed standardization of CS severity stratification, which, coupled with early detection and the “Hub and Spoke” approach, could contribute to improve the prognosis of CS patients. (AU)

Cardiogenic shock as a health issue. Physiology, classification, and detection.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a heterogeneous syndrome with high mortality and a growing incidence. It is characterized by an imbalance between the tissue oxygen demands and the capacity of the cardiovascular system to meet these demands, due to acute cardiac dysfunction. Historically, acute coronary syndromes have been the primary cause of CS. However, non-ischemic cases have seen a rise in incidence. The pathophysiology involves ischemic damage of the myocardium and a sympathetic, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and inflammatory response, perpetuating the situation of tissue hypoperfusion and ultimately leading to multiorgan dysfunction. The characterization of CS patients through a triaxial assessment and the widespread use of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) scale has allowed standardization of the severity stratification of CS; this, coupled with early detection and the "hub and spoke" approach, could contribute to improving the prognosis of these patients.

[Limiting ICU admission from emergency services and wards]. / Limitación del ingreso en unidades de cuidados intensivos desde los servicios de urgencias y las plantas de hospitalización.

INTRODUCTION: Decisions not to admit a patient to intensive care units (ICU) as a way of limiting life support treatment (LLST) is a practice that can affect the operation of the emergency services and the way in which patients die. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of the ADENI-UCI study. The main variable analysed was the reason for refusal of admission to the ICU as a measure of LLST. For the present post hoc analysis, the registered patients were divided into 2 groups: the patients assessed in the intensive medicine services from the emergency department and the patients assessed from the conventional hospitalization areas. Student t was used in the comparative statistics when the mean values of the patient sub-cohorts were compared. Categorical variables were compared with the χ2 tests. RESULTS: The ADENI-ICU study included 2,284 decisions not to admit to the ICU as a measure of LLST. Estimated poor quality of life (p=.0158), the presence of severe chronic disease (P=.0169) and futility of treatment (P=.0006) were percentage decisions with greater weight within the population of hospitalized patients. The percentage of disagreement between the consulting physician and the intensivist was significantly lower in patients assessed from the emergency services (P=.0021). CONCLUSIONS: There are appreciable differences in the reasons for consultation, as well as in those for refusal of admission to an ICU between the consultations made from an emergency department and a conventional hospitalization facility.

Effect of an intensive lung donor-management protocol on lung transplantation outcomes.

BACKGROUND: An intensive lung donor-management protocol based on a strict protocol would increase the lung procurement rate. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of such a protocol on the rate of lung grafts available for transplant. METHODS: A lung-management protocol for donors after brain death (DBD) was implemented in 2009. Lung donors from 2009 to 2011 were the prospective cohort, and those from 2003 to 2008 formed the historical control. We analyzed the synergic effect of several measures, such as protective ventilation, ventilator recruitment maneuvers, high positive end-expiratory pressure, fluid restriction with reduced extravascular lung water values, and hormonal resuscitation therapy in multiorgan DBD. The number of lungs available for transplantation was the main outcome measure. For recipients, early survival and the rate of primary graft dysfunction (PGD) grade 3 were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: The DBD rate was more than 40 donors per 1 million population in both periods. The rate of lung donors increased from 20.1% to 50% (p < 0.001), quadrupling the number of lung donors (p < 0.001), grafts retrieved (p = 0.02), and patients who received a lung transplant (p < 0.01). No differences were observed in the survival of early recipients (p = 0.203) or in the rate of PGD grade 3 (p = 0.835). CONCLUSION: The management of multiorgan DBDs should be approached as a global treatment requiring attentive bedside management. Implementing an intensive lung donor-management protocol based on synergic measures increases lung procurement rates, negative effect on early survival of lung recipients or PGD grade 3.