Cardiogenic shock cost-effectiveness of therapy

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cardiogenic Shock Microchapters

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Classification

Pathophysiology

Causes

Differentiating Cardiogenic shock from other Diseases

Epidemiology and Demographics

Risk Factors

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

Diagnosis

Diagnostic Criteria

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Laboratory Findings

Electrocardiogram

Chest X Ray

CT

MRI

Echocardiography or Ultrasound

Other Imaging Findings

Other Diagnostic Studies

Treatment

Medical Therapy

Surgery

Primary Prevention

Secondary Prevention

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Case Studies

Case #1

Cardiogenic shock cost-effectiveness of therapy On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Cardiogenic shock cost-effectiveness of therapy

All Images
X-rays
Echo & Ultrasound
CT Images
MRI

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Cardiogenic shock cost-effectiveness of therapy

CDC on Cardiogenic shock cost-effectiveness of therapy

Cardiogenic shock cost-effectiveness of therapy in the news

Blogs on Cardiogenic shock cost-effectiveness of therapy

Directions to Hospitals Treating Cardiogenic shock

Risk calculators and risk factors for Cardiogenic shock cost-effectiveness of therapy

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: João André Alves Silva, M.D. [2]

Overview

Cardiogenic shock is considered an emergency and irrespectively to the therapeutic approach, the target goal of any therapy is prompt revascularization of ischemic myocardium. This should be achieved in the shortest timespan possible. There are two major categories of treatment for cardiogenic shock, the medical/conservative approach and the interventional approach. The ideal treatment combines both mechanisms, in which medical therapy, after restored filling pressures, allows hemodynamical stabilization of the patient, until interventional methods, that contribute to the reversal of the process leading to the shock state, may performed. The interventional approach may include PCI or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) and in both techniques the goal is not only reperfusion of the occluded coronary artery, but also prevention of vessel reoclusion. If there is no access to a cardiac catheterization facility, nor the possibility of transferring the patient to one within 90 minutes, then immediately thrombolytic therapy should be considered.[1] Other important factors to increase the chances of a better outcome are: mechanical ventilation, in order to improve tissue oxygenation, and close monitoring of the therapeutic dosages, particularly of vasoactive drugs, since these have been associated with excess mortality due to toxicity effects.[2][3] Also, it is recommended invasive hemodynamic monitoring, in order to monitor and guide the effects of the therapy as well as the overall status of the patient. The success of reperfusion is usually suggested by the relief of symptoms, restoration of hemodynamic parameters and electrical stability, as well as the reduction of at least 50% in the ST-segment on the EKG, in the case of a STEMI.[1][4]

Cost-Effectiveness

Attending to the fact that cardiogenic shock is a lethal condition, with a high mortality rate, if not diagnosed early and treatment started in the shortest time-span possible, an aggressive diagnostic and therapeutic approach are of uttermost importance, therefore justifying the costs involved in the procedures. An evidence of the effectiveness of timely and adequate diagnosis and treatment of cardiogenic shock is the fact that from 1975 to 1990, the in-hospital mortality from this condition averaged 77%. Between 1993 and 1995 this percentage declined to 61%, reaching about 59% in 1997. This decrease was greatly due to the innovative revascularization techniques along with the aggressive approach to shock seen during this period.[5][6]

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Ng, R.; Yeghiazarians, Y. (2011). "Post Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock: A Review of Current Therapies". Journal of Intensive Care Medicine. 28 (3): 151–165. doi:10.1177/0885066611411407. ISSN 0885-0666.
  2. TRIUMPH Investigators. Alexander JH, Reynolds HR, Stebbins AL, Dzavik V, Harrington RA; et al. (2007). "Effect of tilarginine acetate in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: the TRIUMPH randomized controlled trial". JAMA. 297 (15): 1657–66. doi:10.1001/jama.297.15.joc70035. PMID 17387132.
  3. Sakr Y, Reinhart K, Vincent JL, Sprung CL, Moreno R, Ranieri VM; et al. (2006). "Does dopamine administration in shock influence outcome? Results of the Sepsis Occurrence in Acutely Ill Patients (SOAP) Study". Crit Care Med. 34 (3): 589–97. doi:10.1097/01.CCM.0000201896.45809.E3. PMID 16505643.
  4. Hochman, Judith (2009). Cardiogenic shock. Chichester, West Sussex, UK Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9781405179263.
  5. Goldberg, Robert J.; Samad, Navid A.; Yarzebski, Jorge; Gurwitz, Jerry; Bigelow, Carol; Gore, Joel M. (1999). "Temporal Trends in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction". New England Journal of Medicine. 340 (15): 1162–1168. doi:10.1056/NEJM199904153401504. ISSN 0028-4793.
  6. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, Sanborn TA, White HD, Talley JD; et al. (1999). "Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock". N Engl J Med. 341 (9): 625–34. doi:10.1056/NEJM199908263410901. PMID 10460813.


Template:WikiDoc Sources