Tạp chí Tim mạch học Việt Nam

Article detail

Article detail description

Home
BÀI TỔNG QUAN. Issue: Số 117

Updated management and treatment of cardiogenic shock

Văn Đức Hạnh: Viện Tim mạch Việt Nam, Bệnh viện Bạch Mai;
Published: September 30, 2025
Views: 57

Abstract

Cardiogenic shock is a severe clinical condition and a common cause of mortality in cardiovascular diseases. Despite advancements in diagnostic tools, the short-term mortality rate of cardiogenic shock remains high and has not significantly improved. Recent progress in the management, stratification, and treatment of cardiogenic shock has highlighted the practical role of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) shock classification, hemodynamic assessment (both invasive and non-invasive), the role of novel biomarkers, and the application of machine learning in early prediction of shock progression.

The SCAI shock classification provides a useful common language but remains limited by its subjectivity. Therefore, the current trend is to supplement it with quantitative indices and continuous clinical/paraclinical monitoring (e.g., lactate, pH, and hemodynamic changes within 24 hours). Biomarkers such as cDPP3, adrenomedullin, and machine learning models show promise in enhancing early detection and risk stratification but require real-world validation. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices should be used selectively rather than implemented broadly.

References

1.
Waksman R, Pahuja M, Van Diepen S, et al. Standardized Definitions for Cardiogenic Shock Research and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: Scientific Expert Panel From the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC). Circulation. 2023;148(14):1113-1126. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.064527
2.
The Triumph Investigators*. Effect of Tilarginine Acetate in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock: The TRIUMPH Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. 2007;297(15):1657. doi:10.1001/jama.297.15.joc70035
3.
Ott S, Leser L, Lanmüller P, et al. Cardiogenic Shock Management and Research: Past, Present, and Future Outlook. US Cardiol Rev. 2022;16:e03. doi:10.15420/usc.2021.25
4.
Karakas M, Akin I, Burdelski C, et al. Single-dose of adrecizumab versus placebo in acute cardiogenic shock (ACCOST-HH): an investigator-initiated, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2022;10(3):247-254. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00439-2
5.
Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. PCI Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(25):2419-2432. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1710261
6.
Oliva F, Mortara A, Cacciatore G, et al. Acute heart failure patient profiles, management and in‐hospital outcome: results of the Italian Registry on Heart Failure Outcome. Eur J Heart Fail. 2012;14(11):1208-1217. doi:10.1093/eurjhf/hfs117
7.
Shah M, Patnaik S, Patel B, et al. Trends in mechanical circulatory support use and hospital mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction and non-infarction related cardiogenic shock in the United States. Clin Res Cardiol. 2018;107(4):287-303. doi:10.1007/s00392-017-1182-2
8.
Baran DA, Grines CL, Bailey S, et al. SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: This document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in April 2019. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;94(1):29-37. doi:10.1002/ccd.28329
9.
Naidu SS, Baran DA, Jentzer JC, et al. SCAI SHOCK Stage Classification Expert Consensus Update: A Review and Incorporation of Validation Studies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;79(9):933-946. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2022.01.018
10.
Schrage B, Dabboura S, Yan I, et al. Application of the SCAI classification in a cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;96(3). doi:10.1002/ccd.28707
11.
Thayer KL, Zweck E, Ayouty M, et al. Invasive Hemodynamic Assessment and Classification of In-Hospital Mortality Risk Among Patients With Cardiogenic Shock. Circ Heart Fail. 2020;13(9):e007099. doi:10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.120.007099
12.
Hanson ID, Tagami T, Mando R, et al. SCAI shock classification in acute myocardial infarction: Insights from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;96(6):1137-1142. doi:10.1002/ccd.29139
13.
Jentzer JC, Schrage B, Holmes DR, et al. Influence of age and shock severity on short-term survival in patients with cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2021;10(6):604-612. doi:10.1093/ehjacc/zuaa035
14.
Jentzer JC, Baran DA, Van Diepen S, et al. Admission Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention shock stage stratifies post-discharge mortality risk in cardiac intensive care unit patients. Am Heart J. 2020;219:37-46. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2019.10.012
15.
Lawler PR, Berg DD, Park JG, et al. The Range of Cardiogenic Shock Survival by Clinical Stage: Data From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry. Crit Care Med. 2021;49(8):1293-1302. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000004948
16.
Morici N, Frea S, Bertaina M, et al. SCAI stage reclassification at 24 h predicts outcome of cardiogenic shock: Insights from the Altshock‐2 registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;101(1):22-32. doi:10.1002/ccd.30484
17.
Baran DA, Long A, Badiye AP, Stelling K. Prospective validation of the SCAI shock classification: Single center analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;96(7):1339-1347. doi:10.1002/ccd.29319
18.
Pham HM, Van HD, Hoang LB, Phan PD, Tran VH. Distribution and 24-hour transition of SCAI shock stages and their association with 30-day mortality in acute myocardial infarction. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023;102(37):e34689. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000034689
19.
Jentzer JC, Schrage B, Patel PC, et al. Association Between the Acidemia, Lactic Acidosis, and Shock Severity With Outcomes in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022;11(9):e024932. doi:10.1161/JAHA.121.024932
20.
Garan AR, Kanwar M, Thayer KL, et al. Complete Hemodynamic Profiling With Pulmonary Artery Catheters in Cardiogenic Shock Is Associated With Lower In-Hospital Mortality. JACC Heart Fail. 2020;8(11):903-913. doi:10.1016/j.jchf.2020.08.012
21.
Thayer KL, Zweck E, Ayouty M, et al. Invasive Hemodynamic Assessment and Classification of In-Hospital Mortality Risk Among Patients With Cardiogenic Shock. Circ Heart Fail. 2020;13(9):e007099. doi:10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.120.007099
22.
Jentzer JC, Wiley BM, Anavekar NS, et al. Noninvasive Hemodynamic Assessment of Shock Severity and Mortality Risk Prediction in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2021;14(2):321-332. doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2020.05.038
23.
Kapur NK, Kanwar M, Sinha SS, et al. Criteria for Defining Stages of Cardiogenic Shock Severity. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;80(3):185-198. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2022.04.049
24.
Sinha SS, Morrow DA, Kapur NK, Kataria R, Roswell RO. 2025 Concise Clinical Guidance: An ACC Expert Consensus Statement on the Evaluation and Management of Cardiogenic Shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2025;85(16):1618-1641. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2025.02.018
25.
Hu Y, Lui A, Goldstein M, et al. Development and external validation of a dynamic risk score for early prediction of cardiogenic shock in cardiac intensive care units using machine learning. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2024;13(6):472-480. doi:10.1093/ehjacc/zuae037
26.
Böhm A, Segev A, Jajcay N, et al. Machine learning-based scoring system to predict cardiogenic shock in acute coronary syndrome. Eur Heart J - Digit Health. 2025;6(2):240-251. doi:10.1093/ehjdh/ztaf002
27.
Galusko V, Wenzl FA, Vandenbriele C, Panoulas V, Lüscher TF, Gorog DA. Current and novel biomarkers in cardiogenic shock. Eur J Heart Fail. 2025;27(6):1106-1125. doi:10.1002/ejhf.3531
28.
Ostadal P, Rokyta R, Karasek J, et al. Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock: Results of the ECMO-CS Randomized Clinical Trial. Circulation. 2023;147(6):454-464. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.062949
29.
Thiele H, Zeymer U, Akin I, et al. Extracorporeal Life Support in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(14):1286-1297. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2307227
30.
Møller JE, Engstrøm T, Jensen LO, et al. Microaxial Flow Pump or Standard Care in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2024;390(15):1382-1393. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2312572
31.
Wang K, Wang L, Ma J, et al. Intra-aortic balloon pump after VA-ECMO reduces mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock: an analysis of the Chinese extracorporeal life support registry. Crit Care. 2024;28(1):394. doi:10.1186/s13054-024-05129-1

Files

Article Views57
Document Views2
Downloads0
Section BÀI TỔNG QUAN.
Issue Số 117
Pages 55-65