Cardiogenic shock historical perspective: Difference between revisions
Joao Silva (talk | contribs) |
Joao Silva (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==Overview== | ==Overview== | ||
The term "cardiogenic shock" is thought to have first arisen in 1942 with Stead who, after studying a series of two [[patients]], described them as having a "[[shock]] of [[cardiac]] origin". This designation would later be rephrased as "cardiogenic shock".<ref name="Stead1942">{{cite journal|last1=Stead|first1=Eugene A.|title=SHOCK SYNDROME PRODUCED BY FAILURE OF THE HEART|journal=Archives of Internal Medicine|volume=69|issue=3|year=1942|pages=369|issn=0003-9926|doi=10.1001/archinte.1942.00200150002001}}</ref> However, the clinical features of cardiogenic shock had first been described by Herrick, in 1912, who noticed in severe [[coronary artery disease]] [[patients]] a profound [[weakness]], a [[rapid pulse]], [[pulmonary]] [[rales]], faint [[heart sounds|cardiac tones]], [[cyanosis]] and [[dyspnea]].<ref name="Herrick1912">{{cite journal|last1=Herrick|first1=James B.|title=CLINICAL FEATURES OF SUDDEN OBSTRUCTION OF THE CORONARY ARTERIES|journal=Journal of the American Medical Association|volume=LIX|issue=23|year=1912|pages=2015|issn=0002-9955|doi=10.1001/jama.1912.04270120001001}}</ref> Despite its still high incidence and mortality nowadays, cardiogenic shock has seen its impact decreased throughout the years. Particularly since the 1970's, when the mortality rate for this condition was about 80-90%, these values have been decreasing since then, particularly due to the earlier diagnosis and better management of CS, with more effective repercussion techniques. Today the its mortality rate is about 50%. | |||
==Historical perspective== | ==Historical perspective== | ||
The term "cardiogenic shock" is thought to have first arisen in 1942 with Stead, | The term "cardiogenic shock" is thought to have first arisen in 1942 with Stead who, after studying a series of two [[patients]], described them as having a "[[shock]] of [[cardiac]] origin". This designation would later be rephrased as "cardiogenic shock".<ref name="Stead1942">{{cite journal|last1=Stead|first1=Eugene A.|title=SHOCK SYNDROME PRODUCED BY FAILURE OF THE HEART|journal=Archives of Internal Medicine|volume=69|issue=3|year=1942|pages=369|issn=0003-9926|doi=10.1001/archinte.1942.00200150002001}}</ref> However, the clinical features of cardiogenic shock had first been described by Herrick, in 1912, who noticed in severe [[coronary artery disease]] [[patients]] a profound [[weakness]], a [[rapid pulse]], [[pulmonary]] [[rales]], faint [[heart sounds|cardiac tones]], [[cyanosis]] and [[dyspnea]].<ref name="Herrick1912">{{cite journal|last1=Herrick|first1=James B.|title=CLINICAL FEATURES OF SUDDEN OBSTRUCTION OF THE CORONARY ARTERIES|journal=Journal of the American Medical Association|volume=LIX|issue=23|year=1912|pages=2015|issn=0002-9955|doi=10.1001/jama.1912.04270120001001}}</ref> | ||
In 1967, after studying a series of 250 patients with [[acute MI]], Killip and Kimball proposed a clinical classification of [[hemodynamic]] status, which included 4 classes and that is still in widespread use:<ref name="pmid6059183">{{cite journal| author=Killip T, Kimball JT| title=Treatment of myocardial infarction in a coronary care unit. A two year experience with 250 patients. | journal=Am J Cardiol | year= 1967 | volume= 20 | issue= 4 | pages= 457-64 | pmid=6059183 | doi= | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=6059183 }} </ref> | In 1967, after studying a series of 250 patients with [[acute MI]], Killip and Kimball proposed a clinical classification of [[hemodynamic]] status, which included 4 classes and that is still in widespread use:<ref name="pmid6059183">{{cite journal| author=Killip T, Kimball JT| title=Treatment of myocardial infarction in a coronary care unit. A two year experience with 250 patients. | journal=Am J Cardiol | year= 1967 | volume= 20 | issue= 4 | pages= 457-64 | pmid=6059183 | doi= | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=6059183 }} </ref> | ||
Revision as of 01:39, 17 May 2014
|
Cardiogenic Shock Microchapters |
|
Diagnosis |
|---|
|
Treatment |
|
Case Studies |
|
Cardiogenic shock historical perspective On the Web |
|
American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Cardiogenic shock historical perspective |
|
Risk calculators and risk factors for Cardiogenic shock historical perspective |
Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: João André Alves Silva, M.D. [2]
Overview
The term "cardiogenic shock" is thought to have first arisen in 1942 with Stead who, after studying a series of two patients, described them as having a "shock of cardiac origin". This designation would later be rephrased as "cardiogenic shock".[1] However, the clinical features of cardiogenic shock had first been described by Herrick, in 1912, who noticed in severe coronary artery disease patients a profound weakness, a rapid pulse, pulmonary rales, faint cardiac tones, cyanosis and dyspnea.[2] Despite its still high incidence and mortality nowadays, cardiogenic shock has seen its impact decreased throughout the years. Particularly since the 1970's, when the mortality rate for this condition was about 80-90%, these values have been decreasing since then, particularly due to the earlier diagnosis and better management of CS, with more effective repercussion techniques. Today the its mortality rate is about 50%.
Historical perspective
The term "cardiogenic shock" is thought to have first arisen in 1942 with Stead who, after studying a series of two patients, described them as having a "shock of cardiac origin". This designation would later be rephrased as "cardiogenic shock".[1] However, the clinical features of cardiogenic shock had first been described by Herrick, in 1912, who noticed in severe coronary artery disease patients a profound weakness, a rapid pulse, pulmonary rales, faint cardiac tones, cyanosis and dyspnea.[2]
In 1967, after studying a series of 250 patients with acute MI, Killip and Kimball proposed a clinical classification of hemodynamic status, which included 4 classes and that is still in widespread use:[3]
- I - no clinical signs of heart failure
- II - S3 gallop and/or basilar rales on lung auscultation and/or elevated JVP
- III - Pulmonary edema
- IV - Cardiogenic shock
Throughout the years the outcome of cardiogenic shock has been improving, with a decrease in mortality seen particularly during the 1990's. According to the studies, 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. For this decrease, revascularization techniques along with an aggressive approach to shock have contributed greatly.[4][5]
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Stead, Eugene A. (1942). "SHOCK SYNDROME PRODUCED BY FAILURE OF THE HEART". Archives of Internal Medicine. 69 (3): 369. doi:10.1001/archinte.1942.00200150002001. ISSN 0003-9926.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Herrick, James B. (1912). "CLINICAL FEATURES OF SUDDEN OBSTRUCTION OF THE CORONARY ARTERIES". Journal of the American Medical Association. LIX (23): 2015. doi:10.1001/jama.1912.04270120001001. ISSN 0002-9955.
- ↑ Killip T, Kimball JT (1967). "Treatment of myocardial infarction in a coronary care unit. A two year experience with 250 patients". Am J Cardiol. 20 (4): 457–64. PMID 6059183.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.