Biomarker patterns in patients with cardiogenic shock versus septic shock.

Biomarkers Cardiogenic shock Mortality Septic shock

Journal

International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature
ISSN: 2352-9067
Titre abrégé: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 101649525

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2024
Historique:
received: 02 02 2024
revised: 11 04 2024
accepted: 07 05 2024
medline: 24 5 2024
pubmed: 24 5 2024
entrez: 24 5 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

In cardiogenic shock (CS), contractile failure is often accompanied by a systemic inflammatory response syndrome. In contrast, many patients with septic shock (SS) develop cardiac dysfunction. A similar hemodynamic support strategy is often deployed in both syndromes but it is unclear whether this is justified based on profiles of biomarkers expressing neurohormonal activation and cardiovascular stress. In this prospective, multicenter cohort, 111 patients with acute myocardial infarction related CS were identified, and matched to patients with SS. Clinical parameters were collected and blood samples were obtained on day 1-3 of Intensive Care admission. In this shock cohort comprising 222 patients, with a mean age of 61 (±13.5) years and of whom 161 (37 %) were male, we found that despite obvious clinical disparities on admission, mortality at 30-days did not differ (CS: 40.5 % vs. SS 43.1 %, p = 0.56). Overall, plasma concentrations of all biomarkers were higher in SS patients, with the largest difference on the first day. However, only in CS patients the biomarker concentrations were associated with mortality. In this prospective, multicenter cohort SS and CS patients showed similarities in baseline conditions and had similar mortality. However, several biomarkers only showed prognostic value in CS.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
In cardiogenic shock (CS), contractile failure is often accompanied by a systemic inflammatory response syndrome. In contrast, many patients with septic shock (SS) develop cardiac dysfunction. A similar hemodynamic support strategy is often deployed in both syndromes but it is unclear whether this is justified based on profiles of biomarkers expressing neurohormonal activation and cardiovascular stress.
Methods UNASSIGNED
In this prospective, multicenter cohort, 111 patients with acute myocardial infarction related CS were identified, and matched to patients with SS. Clinical parameters were collected and blood samples were obtained on day 1-3 of Intensive Care admission.
Results UNASSIGNED
In this shock cohort comprising 222 patients, with a mean age of 61 (±13.5) years and of whom 161 (37 %) were male, we found that despite obvious clinical disparities on admission, mortality at 30-days did not differ (CS: 40.5 % vs. SS 43.1 %, p = 0.56). Overall, plasma concentrations of all biomarkers were higher in SS patients, with the largest difference on the first day. However, only in CS patients the biomarker concentrations were associated with mortality.
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
In this prospective, multicenter cohort SS and CS patients showed similarities in baseline conditions and had similar mortality. However, several biomarkers only showed prognostic value in CS.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38784047
doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2024.101424
pii: S2352-9067(24)00090-3
pmc: PMC11112335
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

101424

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

Elma J Peters (EJ)

Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Martin S Frydland (MS)

Department of Cardiology, The Heart Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Christian Hassager (C)

Department of Cardiology, The Heart Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Lieuwe D J Bos (LDJ)

Intensive Care, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Laboratory of Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Lonneke A van Vught (LA)

Department of Intensive Care Medicine & Laboratory of Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Olaf L Cremer (OL)

Department of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Jacob E Møller (JE)

Department of Cardiology, The Heart Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.

Bert-Jan H van den Born (BH)

Department of Internal/vascular Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Alexander P J Vlaar (APJ)

Department of Intensive Care Medicine & Laboratory of Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Jose P S Henriques (JPS)

Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Classifications MeSH