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
Review
. 2025 May 20;15(5):207.
doi: 10.3390/jpm15050207.

Point of View: A Holistic Four-Interface Conceptual Model for Personalizing Shock Resuscitation

Philippe Rola  1 , Eduardo Kattan  2   3 , Matthew T Siuba  4 , Korbin Haycock  5   6   7 , Sara Crager  8 , Rory Spiegel  9 , Max Hockstein  9 , Vimal Bhardwaj  10 , Ashley Miller  11 , Jon-Emile Kenny  12   13 , Gustavo A Ospina-Tascón  3   14   15 , Glenn Hernandez  2   3
Affiliations
Review

Point of View: A Holistic Four-Interface Conceptual Model for Personalizing Shock Resuscitation

Philippe Rola et al. J Pers Med. .

Abstract

The resuscitation of a patient in shock is a highly complex endeavor that should go beyond normalizing mean arterial pressure and protocolized fluid loading. We propose a holistic, four-interface conceptual model of shock that we believe can benefit both clinicians at the bedside and researchers. The four circulatory interfaces whose uncoupling results in shock are as follows: the left ventricle to arterial, the arterial to capillary, the capillary to venular, and finally the right ventricle to pulmonary artery. We review the pathophysiology and clinical consequences behind the uncoupling of these interfaces, as well as how to assess them, and propose a strategy for approaching a patient in shock. Bedside assessment of shock may include these critical interfaces in order to avoid hemodynamic incoherence and to focus on microcirculatory restoration rather than simply mean arterial pressure. The purpose of this model is to serve as a mental model for learners as well as a framework for further resuscitation research that incorporates these concepts.

Keywords: coherence; hemodynamics; microcirculation; resuscitation; sepsis; shock.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

J.-E.K. is chief medical officer of Flosonics Medical. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Diagrammatic representation of the four main circulatory interfaces.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Theoretical response surface model for a given mean arterial pressure (70 mmHg) according to different combinations of vascular resistance, cardiac output, and preload. MAP: mean arterial pressure; MSFP: mean systemic filling pressure. Note that cardiac output can be adequate or inadequate for the same MAP when it is maintained by a higher resistance.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forrester–Kenny diagram showing the four phenotypic quadrants as well as dynamic phenotypes. Note that different parameters of forward flow and venous congestion may be used depending on available technology and physician familiarity.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Basic and advanced assessment alternatives for each interface (note that this may evolve with further research to include new parameters). Abbreviations: TAPSE—tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion; PASP—pulmonary artery systolic pressure; S’—tissue Doppler velocity; RV—right ventricle; FAC—fractional area change; Ees/Ea—end-systolic elastance/arterial elastance; JVP—jugular venous pulse; CVP—central venous pressure; LVEF—left ventricular ejection fraction; VTI—velocity time integral; VExUS—venous excess ultrasound; RVSI—renal venous stasis index; JV—jugular venous; MSFP—mean systolic filling pressure; NIRS—near infrared spectroscopy; VOT—vascular occlusion test.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Clinical scenario illustrating the evolution of a patient undergoing resuscitation in a framework of both congestive and forward flow parameters.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bakker J., Kattan E., Annane D., Castro R., Cecconi M., de Backer D., Dubin A., Evans L., Gong M.N., Hamzaoui O., et al. Current practice and evolving concepts in septic shock resuscitation. Intensive Care Med. 2022;48:148–163. doi: 10.1007/s00134-021-06595-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. De Backer D., Cecconi M., Chew M.S., Hajjar L., Monnet X., Ospina-Tascón G.A., Ostermann M., Pinsky M.R., Vincent J.-L. A plea for personalization of the hemodynamic management of septic shock. Crit. Care. 2022;26:372. doi: 10.1186/s13054-022-04255-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kattan E., Castro R., Miralles-Aguiar F., Hernandez G.R.P. The emerging concept of Fluid Tolerance: A position paper. J. Crit. Care. 2022;71:154070. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2022.154070. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Malbrain M.L.N.G., Van Regenmortel N., Saugel B., De Tavernier B., Van Gaal P.J., Joannes-Boyau O., Teboul J.L., Rice T.W., Mythen M., Monnet X. Principles of fluid management and stewardship in septic shock: It is time to consider the four D’s and the four phases of fluid therapy. Ann. Intensive Care. 2018;8:66. doi: 10.1186/s13613-018-0402-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Evans L., Rhodes A., Alhazzani W., Antonelli M., Coopersmith C.M., French C., Machado F.R., Mcintyre L., Ostermann M., Prescott H.C., et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: International guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47:1181–1247. doi: 10.1007/s00134-021-06506-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources