Cardiogenic shock historical perspective

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cardiogenic Shock Microchapters

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Classification

Pathophysiology

Causes

Differentiating Cardiogenic shock from other Diseases

Epidemiology and Demographics

Risk Factors

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

Diagnosis

Diagnostic Criteria

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Laboratory Findings

Electrocardiogram

Chest X Ray

CT

MRI

Echocardiography or Ultrasound

Other Imaging Findings

Other Diagnostic Studies

Treatment

Medical Therapy

Surgery

Primary Prevention

Secondary Prevention

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Case Studies

Case #1

Cardiogenic shock historical perspective On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Cardiogenic shock historical perspective

All Images
X-rays
Echo & Ultrasound
CT Images
MRI

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Cardiogenic shock historical perspective

CDC on Cardiogenic shock historical perspective

Cardiogenic shock historical perspective in the news

Blogs on Cardiogenic shock historical perspective

Directions to Hospitals Treating Cardiogenic shock

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] Syed Musadiq Ali M.B.B.S.[3]

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".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.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 reperfusion techniques. Today the its mortality rate is about 50%.

Historical perspective

  • Posttraumatic syndrome was first decribed by the Greek physicians, Hippocrates and Galen.
  • The term shock would only be introduced in 1743 by the English physician Clarke, after the mistranslation of the work of French surgeon Henri Fraçois Le Dran, who in 1737 had written "A Treatise of of Reflections Drawn from Experience with Gunshot Wounds", in which he had described the term "choc" as a result of a severe impact or jolt.
  • Clarke defined it as a sudden deterioration of a patient's condition following a severe trauma.
  • The concept would then be spread by Edwin A. Moses, who in 1867 used it in his "A Practical Treatise on Shock after Operations and Injuries", defining it as an "effect on the animal system, produced by violent injuries from any cause, or from violent mental emotions".[1]
  • 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".[2] 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.[3]
  • 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:[4]
  • 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.[5][6]

References

  1. Parrillo, Joseph (2013). Critical care medicine principles of diagnosis and management in the adult. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier/Saunders. ISBN 0323089291.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.


Template:WikiDoc Sources