Diagnosis of cardiogenic shock without the use of a pulmonary artery catheter

6Citations
Citations of this article
33Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current diagnostic criteria for cardiogenic shock (CS) require the use of a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC), which is time-consuming and may cause complications. A set of simple yet accurate noninvasive diagnostic criteria would be of significant utility. METHODS: Candidate components for the Noninvasive Parameters for Assessment of Cardiogenic Shock (N-PACS) criteria were required to be objective, readily available, and noninvasive. Variables encompassing hypotension, hypoperfusion, predisposing conditions, and elevated intracardiac filling pressures were optimized versus a PAC-based standard in a retrospective developmental cohort of 122 patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The finalized criteria were validated in a prospective cohort of coronary care unit patients in whom a PAC was placed for clinical indications. RESULTS: According to invasive criteria, CS was present in 32 of 217 consecutive patients undergoing PAC. Compared to the PAC-based standard, the N-PACS criteria had a sensitivity of 96.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 82.0-99.8), specificity of 90.8% (95% CI 85.5-94.4), positive predictive value of 64.6% (95% CI 49.4-77.4), negative predictive value of 99.4% (95% CI 96.2-100), positive likelihood ratio of 10.5 (95% CI 6.7-16.7), negative likelihood ratio of 0.03 (95% CI 0.00-0.24), and diagnostic odds ratio of 306.4. Results were similar among patients with and without AMI. CONCLUSION: A simple, echocardiography-based set of noninvasive diagnostic criteria can be used to accurately diagnose CS.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cooper, H. A., Najafi, A. H., Ghafourian, K., Paixao, A. R. m., Aljaabari, M., Iantorno, M., … Panza, J. A. (2015). Diagnosis of cardiogenic shock without the use of a pulmonary artery catheter. European Heart Journal. Acute Cardiovascular Care, 4(1), 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/2048872614534564

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free