Advanced Metrics and Early Predictors of Cardiogenic Shock

Abstract

Cardiogenic shock (CS) can be defined as a range of illnesses that describes a state where cardiac output, which is the blood volume ejected from the left ventricle every minute that leads to tissue perfusion of nutrients, is insuffcient in providing adequate oxygenation to the systemic circulation. The incidence of CS on admission has increased in recent years, with the six- and 12-month mortality rates remaining unchanged. The purpose of this literature review is to bring forth several parameters that have been utilized in the past 10 years to predict CS mortality. Further studies to implement these parameters in management algorithms, along with early screenings and advanced treatment options such as mechanical cardiac assist devices, can improve the mortality associated with CS. This literature-based review was conducted by evaluating current research focusing on the clinical presentation of CS and predictors of CS. PubMed served as the primary database for article retrieval due to access. Two searches were conducted: One for clinical presentations and advanced metrics for CS and another for early predictors for CS. Thirteen articles regarding clinical presentation and seven articles regarding early predictors were selected. Three tools/scores and five laboratory tests were identified that allowed clinicians to prognosticate outcomes in patients suffering from CS based on clinical and laboratory presentations. Examining these predictors will allow earlier intervention in the development of CS and potentially help lower the mortality rate of CS. The eventual creation of a scoring system that incorporates multiple metrics discussed in this review can provide the most accurate prognosis of CS, which can lead to more targeted interventions. This is the full abstract presented at the American Physiology Summit 2024 meeting and is only available in HTML format. There are no additional versions or additional content available for this abstract. Physiology was not involved in the peer review process.