Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Mar 18;24(1):95.
doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-2816-8.

Impact of concomitant vasoactive treatment and mechanical left ventricular unloading in a porcine model of profound cardiogenic shock

Affiliations

Impact of concomitant vasoactive treatment and mechanical left ventricular unloading in a porcine model of profound cardiogenic shock

Nanna L J Udesen et al. Crit Care. .

Abstract

Background: Concomitant vasoactive drugs are often required to maintain adequate perfusion pressure in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS) receiving hemodynamic support with an axial flow pump (Impella CP).

Objective: To compare the effect of equipotent dosages of epinephrine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and phenylephrine on cardiac work and end-organ perfusion in a porcine model of profound ischemic CS supported with an Impella CP.

Methods: CS was induced in 10 pigs by stepwise intracoronary injection of polyvinyl microspheres. Hemodynamic support with Impella CP was initiated followed by blinded crossover to vasoactive treatment with norepinephrine (0.10 μg/kg/min), epinephrine (0.10 μg/kg/min), or dopamine (10 μg/kg/min) for 30 min each. At the end of the study, phenylephrine (10 μg/kg/min) was administered for 20 min. The primary outcome was cardiac workload, a product of pressure-volume area (PVA) and heart rate (HR), measured using the conductance catheter technique. End-organ perfusion was assessed by measuring venous oxygen saturation from the pulmonary artery (SvO2), jugular bulb, and renal vein. Treatment effects were evaluated using multilevel mixed-effects linear regression.

Results: All catecholamines significantly increased LV stroke work and cardiac work, dopamine to the greatest extend by 341.8 × 103 (mmHg × mL)/min [95% CI (174.1, 509.5), p < 0.0001], and SvO2 significantly improved during all catecholamines. Phenylephrine, a vasoconstrictor, caused a significant increase in cardiac work by 437.8 × 103 (mmHg × mL)/min [95% CI (297.9, 577.6), p < 0.0001] due to increase in potential energy (p = 0.001), but no significant change in LV stroke work. Also, phenylephrine tended to decrease SvO2 (p = 0.063) and increased arterial lactate levels (p = 0.002).

Conclusion: Catecholamines increased end-organ perfusion at the expense of increased cardiac work, most by dopamine. However, phenylephrine increased cardiac work with no increase in end-organ perfusion.

Keywords: Acute myocardial infarction; Cardiac work; Cardiogenic shock; Mechanical circulatory support; Organ perfusion; Vasopressor.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The study received a grant from Abiomed. NLJU and OKLH have received travel compensation by Abiomed. JEM has received research grants and speaker’s fee from Abiomed.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Representative pressure-volume loops during therapeutic interventions. The PV loop at baseline, cardiogenic shock, and during Impella is depicted in the middle panel. The PV loop depicting the effect of concomitant vasoactive agent and Impella compared to Impella alone is depicted in the side panels. The PV loops represents the average effects on each intervention
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
End-organ perfusion. The relative mean difference during interventions compared to Impella alone. Impella alone is represented by the red dotted line. AD, epinephrine; DA, dopamine; NA, norepinephrine; PE, phenylephrine
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Correlation of oxygen delivery with cardiac work. SvO2 (y-axis) represents the mean mixed venous oxygen saturation and HR × PVA (x-axis) represents the mean cardiac work

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Helgestad OKL, Josiassen J, Hassager C, Jensen LO, Holmvang L, Sørensen A, et al. Temporal trends in incidence and patient characteristics in cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction from 2010 to 2017: a Danish cohort study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019. 10.1002/ejhf.1566 [Epub ahead of print]. - PubMed
    1. Goldberg RJ, Spencer FA, Gore JM, Lessard D, Yarzebski J. Thirty-year trends (1975 to 2005) in the magnitude of, management of, and hospital death rates associated with cardiogenic shock in patients with acute myocardial infarction a population-based perspective. Circulation. 2009;119(9):1211–1219. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kolte D, Khera S, Aronow WS, Mujib M, Palaniswamy C, Sule S, et al. Trends in incidence, management, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock complicating ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the United States. J Am Heart Assoc. 2014;3(1):e000590. - PMC - PubMed
    1. De Luca L, Olivari Z, Farina A, Gonzini L, Lucci D, Di Chiara A, et al. Temporal trends in the epidemiology, management, and outcome of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute coronary syndromes. Eur J Heart Fail. 2015;17(11):1124–1132. - PubMed
    1. Rathod KS, Koganti S, Iqbal MB, Jain AK, Kalra SS, Astroulakis Z, et al. Contemporary trends in cardiogenic shock: incidence, intra-aortic balloon pump utilisation and outcomes from the London Heart Attack Group. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2018;7(1):16–27. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources