4.3 Article

Design and preliminary results of FRENSHOCK 2016: A prospective nationwide multicentre registry on cardiogenic shock

期刊

ARCHIVES OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES
卷 112, 期 5, 页码 343-353

出版社

ELSEVIER MASSON, CORP OFF
DOI: 10.1016/j.acvd.2019.02.001

关键词

Cardiogenic shock; Registry; Design

资金

  1. Federation francaise de cardiologie
  2. Daiichi-Sankyo-Eli-Lilly alliance
  3. Maquet SAS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. - Most data on the epidemiology of cardiogenic shock (CS) have come from patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to intensive cardiac care units (ICCUs). However, CS can have other aetiologies, and could be managed in intensive care units (ICUs), especially the most severe forms of CS. Aim. - To gather data on the characteristics, management and outcomes of patients hospitalized in ICCUs and ICUs for CS, whatever the aetiology, in France in 2016. Methods. - We included all adult patients with CS between April and October 2016 in metropolitan France. CS was defined (at admission or during hospitalization) by: low cardiac output, defined by systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg and/or the need for amines to maintain systolic blood pressure > 90 mmHg and/or cardiac index < 2.2 L/min/m(2); elevation of the left and/or right heart pressures, defined by clinical, radiological, biological, echocardiographic or invasive haemodynamic overload signs; and clinical and/or biological signs of malperfusion (lactate > 2 mmol/L, hepatic insufficiency, renal failure). Results. - Over a 6-month period, 772 patients were included in the survey (mean age 65.7 14.9 years; 71.5% men) from 49 participating centres (91.8% were public, and 77.8% of these were university hospitals). Ischaemic trigger was the most common cause (36.3%). Conclusions. - To date, FRENSHOCK is the largest CS survey; it will provide a detailed and comprehensive global description of the spectrum and management of patients with CS in a high-income country. (C) 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据