心源性休克的诊断和治疗。

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Current Opinion in Critical Care Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-23 DOI:10.1097/MCC.0000000000001288
Lavanya Bellumkonda
{"title":"心源性休克的诊断和治疗。","authors":"Lavanya Bellumkonda","doi":"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Cardiogenic shock continues to portend a poor prognosis. Despite ongoing efforts over the past few decades to help improve mortality, little progress has been made in improving the short-term and long-term outcomes of patients presenting with cardiogenic shock. This is especially true of those presenting with acute myocardial infarct related cardiogenic shock.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Cardiogenic shock should be understood as a continuum. Patients can move from one stage of shock to another and hence should be assessed on an ongoing basis. Cardiogenic shock should be assessed based on the severity, the phenotypic presentation and the concomitant processes that influence prognosis. Right ventricular cardiogenic shock and mixed cardiogenic shock have been recognized as predictors of worse overall prognosis. Incorporating detailed classification of cause of cardiogenic shock into routine clinical practice and will help with standardizing nomenclature and aid in understanding of the disease process and assist in refining interventions.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Early identification, risk stratification and understanding the nuances of presentation may help with selecting appropriate treatment strategies. Aggressive management should include multidisciplinary team-based approaches to help escalate care as needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":10851,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Critical Care","volume":" ","pages":"428-436"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnosis and management of cardiogenic shock.\",\"authors\":\"Lavanya Bellumkonda\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MCC.0000000000001288\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Cardiogenic shock continues to portend a poor prognosis. Despite ongoing efforts over the past few decades to help improve mortality, little progress has been made in improving the short-term and long-term outcomes of patients presenting with cardiogenic shock. This is especially true of those presenting with acute myocardial infarct related cardiogenic shock.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Cardiogenic shock should be understood as a continuum. Patients can move from one stage of shock to another and hence should be assessed on an ongoing basis. Cardiogenic shock should be assessed based on the severity, the phenotypic presentation and the concomitant processes that influence prognosis. Right ventricular cardiogenic shock and mixed cardiogenic shock have been recognized as predictors of worse overall prognosis. Incorporating detailed classification of cause of cardiogenic shock into routine clinical practice and will help with standardizing nomenclature and aid in understanding of the disease process and assist in refining interventions.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Early identification, risk stratification and understanding the nuances of presentation may help with selecting appropriate treatment strategies. Aggressive management should include multidisciplinary team-based approaches to help escalate care as needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10851,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Opinion in Critical Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"428-436\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Opinion in Critical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCC.0000000000001288\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCC.0000000000001288","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

回顾的目的:心源性休克仍然预示着不良预后。尽管过去几十年来一直在努力帮助提高死亡率,但在改善心源性休克患者的短期和长期预后方面进展甚微。这尤其适用于急性心肌梗死相关的心源性休克。最近发现:心源性休克应被理解为一个连续体。患者可以从休克的一个阶段转移到另一个阶段,因此应该持续评估。心源性休克应根据严重程度、表型表现和影响预后的伴随过程进行评估。右室心源性休克和混合性心源性休克被认为是整体预后较差的预测因素。将心源性休克病因的详细分类纳入常规临床实践,将有助于标准化命名,有助于理解疾病过程,并有助于改进干预措施。总结:早期识别,风险分层和了解表现的细微差别可能有助于选择适当的治疗策略。积极的管理应包括基于多学科团队的方法,以帮助根据需要升级护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Diagnosis and management of cardiogenic shock.

Purpose of review: Cardiogenic shock continues to portend a poor prognosis. Despite ongoing efforts over the past few decades to help improve mortality, little progress has been made in improving the short-term and long-term outcomes of patients presenting with cardiogenic shock. This is especially true of those presenting with acute myocardial infarct related cardiogenic shock.

Recent findings: Cardiogenic shock should be understood as a continuum. Patients can move from one stage of shock to another and hence should be assessed on an ongoing basis. Cardiogenic shock should be assessed based on the severity, the phenotypic presentation and the concomitant processes that influence prognosis. Right ventricular cardiogenic shock and mixed cardiogenic shock have been recognized as predictors of worse overall prognosis. Incorporating detailed classification of cause of cardiogenic shock into routine clinical practice and will help with standardizing nomenclature and aid in understanding of the disease process and assist in refining interventions.

Summary: Early identification, risk stratification and understanding the nuances of presentation may help with selecting appropriate treatment strategies. Aggressive management should include multidisciplinary team-based approaches to help escalate care as needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Current Opinion in Critical Care
Current Opinion in Critical Care 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.00%
发文量
172
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​​​​​​​Current Opinion in Critical Care delivers a broad-based perspective on the most recent and most exciting developments in critical care from across the world. Published bimonthly and featuring thirteen key topics – including the respiratory system, neuroscience, trauma and infectious diseases – the journal’s renowned team of guest editors ensure a balanced, expert assessment of the recently published literature in each respective field with insightful editorials and on-the-mark invited reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信