Format

Send to

Choose Destination

See 1 citation found by title matching your search:

Crit Care. 2018 Jun 15;22(1):162. doi: 10.1186/s13054-018-2078-x.

Shock subtypes by left ventricular ejection fraction following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Author information

1
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
2
Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
3
Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
4
Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
5
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
6
Center for Acute Respiratory Failure, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons, 622 W. 168th Street, 8E101, New York, NY, 10032, USA. jrb2266@cumc.columbia.edu.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Post-resuscitation hemodynamic instability following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) may occur from myocardial dysfunction underlying cardiogenic shock and/or inflammation-mediated distributive shock. Distinguishing the predominant shock subtype with widely available clinical metrics may have prognostic and therapeutic value.

METHODS:

A two-hospital cohort was assembled of patients in shock following OHCA. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was assessed via echocardiography or cardiac ventriculography within 1 day post arrest and used to delineate shock physiology. The study evaluated whether higher LVEF, indicating distributive-predominant shock physiology, was associated with neurocognitive outcome (primary endpoint), survival, and duration of multiple organ failures. The study also investigated whether volume resuscitation exhibited a subtype-specific association with outcome.

RESULTS:

Of 162 patients with post-resuscitation shock, 48% had normal LVEF (> 40%), consistent with distributive shock physiology. Higher LVEF was associated with less favorable neurocognitive outcome (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.94 per 10% increase in LVEF; p = 0.01). Higher LVEF also was associated with worse survival (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.97; p = 0.02) and fewer organ failure-free days (β = - 0.67, 95% CI - 1.28 to - 0.06; p = 0.03). Only 51% of patients received a volume challenge of at least 30 ml/kg body weight in the first 6 h post arrest, and the volume received did not differ by LVEF. Greater volume resuscitation in the first 6 h post arrest was associated with favorable neurocognitive outcome (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.99-2.55 per liter; p = 0.03) and survival (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.02-2.04; p = 0.02) among patients with normal LVEF but not low LVEF.

CONCLUSIONS:

In post-resuscitation shock, higher LVEF-indicating distributive shock physiology-was associated with less favorable neurocognitive outcome, fewer days without organ failure, and higher mortality. Greater early volume resuscitation was associated with more favorable neurocognitive outcome and survival in patients with this shock subtype. Additional studies with repeated measures of complementary hemodynamic parameters are warranted to validate the clinical utility for subtyping post-resuscitation shock.

KEYWORDS:

Cardiac arrest; Cardiogenic shock; Distributive shock; Reperfusion injury; Shock; Systemic inflammatory response syndrome

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center