Medscape is available in 5 Language Editions – Choose your Edition here.


Cardiogenic Shock Treatment & Management

  • Author: Xiushui (Mike) Ren, MD; Chief Editor: Henry H Ooi, MD, MRCPI  more...
Updated: Dec 13, 2015

Approach Considerations

Cardiogenic shock is an emergency requiring immediate resuscitative therapy before shock irreversibly damages vital organs. The key to a good outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock is an organized approach, with rapid diagnosis and prompt initiation of pharmacologic therapy to maintain blood pressure and cardiac output and respiratory support, as well as reversal of the underlying cause.

All patients require admission to an intensive care setting, which may involve emergent transfer to the cardiac catheterization suite, critical care transport to a tertiary care center, or internal transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU).

Early and definitive restoration of coronary blood flow is the most important intervention for achieving an improved survival rate. At present, it represents standard therapy for patients with cardiogenic shock due to myocardial ischemia.

Correction of electrolyte and acid-base abnormalities, such as hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, and acidosis, is essential in cardiogenic shock.

Cardiogenic shock may be prevented with early revascularization in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) and with required intervention in patients with structural heart disease.


Placement of a central line may facilitate volume resuscitation, provide vascular access for multiple infusions, and allow invasive monitoring of central venous pressure. Central venous pressure may also be used to guide fluid resuscitation.

Although not necessary for the diagnosis of cardiogenic shock, invasive monitoring with a pulmonary artery catheter may be helpful in guiding fluid resuscitation in situations in which left ventricular preload is difficult to determine.

Pulmonary artery catheter pressure measurements may also be useful in prognosis. Retrospective evaluation of these measurements from the SHOCK trial demonstrated that stroke volume index (SVI) and stroke work index (SWI) vary inversely with mortality.[20]

An arterial line may be placed to provide continuous blood pressure monitoring. This is particularly useful if the patient requires inotropic medications.

An intra-aortic balloon pump may be placed in the emergency department as a bridge to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), to decrease myocardial workload and to improve end-organ perfusion.[11]

PCI and coronary artery bypass

Clinicians should be alert to the fact that the SHOCK trial demonstrated that either PCI or coronary artery bypass is the treatment of choice for cardiogenic shock and that each has been shown to markedly decrease mortality rates at 1 year. PCI should be initiated within 90 minutes of presentation; however, it remains helpful, as an acute intervention, within 12 hours of presentation.

If such a facility is not immediately available, thrombolytics should be considered. However, this treatment is second best. An increased mortality is seen in situations in which thrombolytics are used instead of PCI. This is due to the relative ineffectiveness of the thrombolytic medications to lyse clots in low-blood pressure situations.[22, 2]


Consult a cardiologist at the earliest opportunity because his or her insight and expertise may be invaluable for facilitating echocardiographic support, placement of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), and transfer to more definitive care (eg, cardiac catheterization suite, ICU, operating room). In severe cases, also consider discussing the case with a cardiothoracic surgeon.

Deterrence and prevention

Although cardiogenic shock is not entirely preventable, measures can be taken to minimize the risk of occurrence, recognize it at earlier stages, and begin corrective therapy more expeditiously. Deterrence and prevention require a high degree of suspicion and heightened awareness.

Care is required in treating patients with acute coronary syndromes who are not yet in cardiogenic shock. Careful use of beta blockers and ACE inhibitors in these patients is essential to avoid hypotension leading to cardiogenic shock.[2]


Prehospital Care

Prehospital care is aimed at minimizing any further ischemia and shock. All patients require intravenous access, high-flow oxygen administered by mask, and cardiac monitoring.

Twelve-lead electrocardiography performed in the field by appropriately trained paramedics may be useful in decreasing door-to-PCI times and/or time to the administration of thrombolytics because acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMIs) can be identified earlier. The emergency department (ED) can thus be alerted and may mobilize the appropriate resources.

Inotropic medications should be considered in systems with appropriately trained paramedical personnel.

When clinically necessary, positive pressure ventilation and endotracheal intubation should be performed. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) support can be considered in appropriately equipped systems.


Resuscitation, Ventilation, and Pharmacologic Intervention

Initial management includes fluid resuscitation to correct hypovolemia and hypotension, unless pulmonary edema is present. Central venous and arterial lines are often required. Swan-Ganz catheterization and continuous percutaneous oximetry are routine.

Oxygenation and airway protection are critical; intubation and mechanical ventilation are commonly required. However, although positive pressure ventilation may improve oxygenation, it may also compromise venous return, preload, to the heart. In any event, the patient should be treated with high-flow oxygen. Studies in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema have shown noninvasive ventilation to improve hemodynamics and reduce the intubation rate. Mortality, however, is unaffected.

A study by Shin et al suggested that patients who receive extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) versus conventional CPR for longer than 10 minutes following in-hospital arrest have a greater chance of survival.[23]

All patients with cardiogenic shock require close hemodynamic monitoring, volume support to ensure adequate sufficient preload, and ventilatory support.

Pharmacologic therapy

Patients with myocardial infarction (MI) or acute coronary syndrome are given aspirin and heparin. Both of these medications have been shown to be effective in reducing mortality in separate studies. Before initiating therapy, however, care should be taken to ensure that the patient does not have a myocardial wall rupture that is amenable to surgery.

There is no need to start clopidogrel until after angiography, since angiography may demonstrate that there is a need for urgent coronary bypass.[2]

The glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors improve the outcome of patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTACS). They have been found to reduce recurrent MI following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and in cardiogenic shock.


Hemodynamic Support

Dopamine, norepinephrine, and epinephrine are vasoconstricting drugs that help to maintain adequate blood pressure during life-threatening hypotension and help to preserve perfusion pressure for optimizing flow in various organs.[21] The mean blood pressure required for adequate splanchnic and renal perfusion (mean arterial pressure [MAP] of 60 or 65 mm Hg) is based on clinical indices of organ function.

In patients with inadequate tissue perfusion and adequate intravascular volume, initiation of inotropic and/or vasopressor drug therapy may be necessary. Dopamine increases myocardial contractility and supports the blood pressure; however, it may increase myocardial oxygen demand. Dobutamine may be preferable if the systolic blood pressure is higher than 80 mm Hg; it has the advantage of not affecting myocardial oxygen demand as much as dopamine does. However, the resulting tachycardia may preclude the use of this inotropic agent in some patients. Dopamine will cause more tachycardia than dobutamine for any corresponding increase in cardiac output.

Dopamine is usually initiated at a rate of 5-10 mcg/kg/min intravenously, and the infusion rate is adjusted according to the blood pressure and other hemodynamic parameters. Often, patients may require high doses of dopamine (as much as 20 mcg/kg/min).

If the patient remains hypotensive despite moderate doses of dopamine, a direct vasoconstrictor (eg, norepinephrine) should be started at a dose of 0.5 mcg/kg/min and titrated to maintain an MAP of 60 mm Hg. The potent vasoconstrictors (eg, norepinephrine) are best reserved for situations of refractory hypotension and organ hypoperfusion, due to their unfavorable role in increasing afterload and cardiac filling pressure and, consequently, impairing cardiac output. However, one study showed there was no difference in outcomes in patients with shock when treated with norepinephrine versus dopamine.[24]  There is no consensus regarding first-line choice of vasopressor in cardiogenic shock. 

Vasopressor supportive therapy

The following is a brief review of the mechanism of action and indications for drugs used for hemodynamic support of cardiogenic shock.[25, 26]  There is little randomized clinical trial data to guide the use of inotropic or pressor therapy in patients with cardiogenic shock. Their use is indicated in patients with cardiogenic shock, but it is important to note that a survival benefit from these agents has not been established. Indeed, routine use of these agents in patients with hemodynamically stable, decompensated heart failure was associated with greater morbidity and no clinical benefit (Outcomes of a Prospective Trial of Intravenous Milrinone for Exacerbations of Chronic Heart Failure [OPTIME-CHF]).[27, 28]


Dopamine is a precursor of norepinephrine and epinephrine and has varying effects according to the doses infused. A dose of less than 5 mcg/kg/min causes vasodilation of renal, mesenteric, and coronary beds. At a dose of 5-10 mcg/kg/min, beta1-adrenergic effects induce an increase in cardiac contractility and heart rate.

At doses greater 10 mcg/kg/min, predominant alpha-adrenergic effects lead to arterial vasoconstriction and an elevation in blood pressure. The blood pressure increases primarily as a result of its inotropic effect. The undesirable effects are tachycardia and increased pulmonary shunting, as well as the potential for decreased splanchnic perfusion and increased pulmonary arterial wedge pressure.


Norepinephrine is a potent alpha-adrenergic agonist with only minor beta1-adrenergic agonist effects. Norepinephrine can increase blood pressure successfully in patients who remain hypotensive following dopamine. The dose of norepinephrine may vary from 0.2-1.5 mcg/kg/min, and large doses, as high as 3.3 mcg/kg/min, have been used because of the alpha-receptor down-regulation in persons with sepsis.


Epinephrine is an agonist of alpha1, beta1, and beta2 receptors. It can increase the MAP by increasing the cardiac index and stroke volume, as well as systemic vascular resistance (SVR) and heart rate. Epinephrine decreases the splanchnic blood flow and may increase oxygen delivery and consumption.

Administration of this agent may be associated with an increase in systemic and regional lactate concentrations. The use of epinephrine is recommended only in patients who are unresponsive to traditional agents. Other undesirable effects include an increase in lactate concentration, a potential to produce myocardial ischemia, the development of arrhythmias, and a reduction in splanchnic flow.


Levosimendan, widely used in Europe but not approved for use in the United States, can be considered for use in conjunction with vasopressors to improve coronary blood flow.[29, 30]  This agent acts by increasing the sensitivity of the cardiac myofilament to calcium, rather than increasing intracellular concentrations of free calcium. Levosimendan stabilises troponin C and the kinetics of actin-myosin cross-bridges without increasing myocardial consumption of adenosine triphosphate (ATP).  Levosimendan is a potent inotrope and also a vasodilator of the arterial, venous, and coronary circulation. It should be used with caution, however, as it can cause hypotension. 

Inotropic supportive therapy


Dobutamine (sympathomimetic agent) is a beta1-receptor agonist, although it has some beta2-receptor and minimal alpha-receptor activity. It is used in a dose range of 2 to 20 mcg/kg/min and has a half-life of approximately 2 minutes. Intravenous dobutamine induces significant positive inotropic effects, with mild chronotropic effects through activation of adenyl cyclase, an increase in intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) and, therefore, calcium levels. It also induces mild peripheral vasodilation (decrease in afterload). The combined effect of increased inotropy and decreased afterload induces a significant increase in cardiac output.

In the setting of acute myocardial infarction (MI), dobutamine use could increase the size of the infarct because of the increase in myocardial oxygen consumption that may ensue. In general, caution should be exercised when administering dobutamine in patients with moderate or severe hypotension (eg, systolic blood pressure <80 mm Hg), because the peripheral vasodilation, in some cases, may cause a further fall in blood pressure.

Phosphodiesterase III inhibitors

Phosphodiesterase III inhibitors (PDIs), which include inamrinone (formerly amrinone) and milrinone, are inotropic agents with vasodilating properties and long half-lives. Milrinone is used in a dose range of 0.3 to 0.75 mcg/kg/min, and has a long half-life of 1.5 to 3 hours, with the longer half-life in patients with renal impairment.

The mechanism of action of PDIs is distinct from dobutamine in that they prevent breakdown of cAMP, thereby increasing intracellular cAMP levels. The hemodynamic properties of PDIs are (1) a positive inotropic effect on the myocardium and peripheral vasodilation (decreased afterload) and (2) a reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance (decreased preload).

PDIs may be beneficial in persons with cardiac pump failure who require more concomitant pulmonary and systemic vasodilation than is typically achieved by dobutamine. Unlike catecholamine inotropes, these drugs are not dependent on adrenoreceptor activity; therefore, patients are less likely to develop tolerance to these medications.

PDIs are less likely than catecholamines to cause adverse effects known to be associated with adrenoreceptor activity (eg, increased myocardial oxygen demand, myocardial ischemia). They are also associated with less tachycardia and myocardial oxygen consumption. However, the incidence of tachyarrhythmias is greater with PDIs than with dobutamine.


Thrombolytic Therapy

Although thrombolytic therapy (TT) reduces mortality rates in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI), its benefits for patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to MI are disappointing. When used early in the course of MI, TT reduces the likelihood of subsequent development of cardiogenic shock after the initial event.

In the Gruppo Italiano Per lo Studio Della Streptokinase Nell'Infarto Miocardio trial, 30-day mortality rates were 69.9% in patients with cardiogenic shock who received streptokinase, compared to 70.1% in patients who received a placebo.[31, 32]

Similarly, other studies employing a tissue plasminogen activator did not show reductions in mortality rates from cardiogenic shock. Lower rates of reperfusion of the infarct-related artery in patients with cardiogenic shock may help to explain the disappointing results from TT. Other reasons for the decreased efficacy of TT are the existence of hemodynamic, mechanical, and metabolic causes of cardiogenic shock that are unaffected by TT.

Thrombolytic therapy plus IABP

A prospective cohort study demonstrated the potential survival benefit of combining TT with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation in patients with MI complicated by cardiogenic shock.[33]  Of the 1190 patients enrolled, the treatments were (1) no TT and no IABP counterpulsation (33%, n = 285), (2) IABP counterpulsation only (33%, n = 279), (3) TT only (15%, n = 132), and (4) TT and IABP counterpulsation (19%, n = 160).

Patients in cardiogenic shock who were treated with TT had lower in-hospital mortality rates than did those who did not receive TT (54% vs 64%), and patients selected for IABP counterpulsation had lower in-hospital mortality rates than did those who did not receive IABP counterpulsation (50% vs 72%).[33]  Furthermore, a significant difference was noted for inhospital mortality rates among the 4 treatment groups; that is, TT plus IABP counterpulsation (47%), IABP counterpulsation only (52%), TT only (63%), no TT and no IABP counterpulsation (77%). Revascularization influenced in-hospital mortality rates significantly (39% with revascularization vs 78% without revascularization).[33]

Patients who are unsuitable for invasive therapy should be treated with a thrombolytic agent in the absence of contraindications. This is a class I recommendation by American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines.[21]


Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump

The use of the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) reduces systolic left ventricular afterload and augments diastolic coronary perfusion pressure, thereby increasing cardiac output and improving coronary artery blood flow. The IABP is effective for the initial stabilization of patients with cardiogenic shock. However, an IABP is not definitive therapy; the IABP stabilizes patients so that definitive diagnostic and therapeutic interventions can be performed.[34, 35]

The IABP also may be a useful adjunct to thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction (MI) for initial stabilization and transfer of patients to a tertiary care facility. Some studies have shown lower mortality rates in patients with MI and cardiogenic shock treated with an IABP and subsequent revascularization.[33, 36]

Complications may be documented in up to 30% of patients who undergo IABP therapy; these relate primarily to local vascular problems, embolism, infection, and hemolysis.

The impact of treatment with an IABP on long-term survival is controversial and depends on the patient’s hemodynamic status and the etiology of the cardiogenic shock. Patient selection is the key issue; inserting the IABP early, rather than waiting until full-blown cardiogenic shock has developed, may result in clinical benefit.

Ramanathan et al found that rapid and complete reversal of systemic hypoperfusion with IABP counterpulsation in the SHOCK trial and SHOCK registry was independently associated with improved inhospital, 30-day, and 1-year survival, regardless of early revascularization. This suggests that complete reversal of systemic hypoperfusion with IABP counterpulsation is an important early prognostic feature.[37]

In the IABP-SHOCK II study, 600 patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction were randomized to intraaortic balloon counterpulsation or no intraaortic balloon counterpulsation. All patients were expected to undergo early revascularization. Use of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation did not significantly reduce 30-day mortality in these patients.[38]


Ventricular Assist Devices

In relatively recent years, left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) capable of providing complete short-term hemodynamic support have been developed. The application of LVAD during reperfusion, after acute coronary occlusion, causes reduction of the left ventricular preload, increases regional myocardial blood flow and lactate extraction, and improves general cardiac function. The LVAD makes it possible to maintain the collateral blood flow as a result of maintaining the cardiac output and aortic pressure, keeping wall tension low and reducing the extent of microvascular reperfusion injury.[34, 35, 39]

A pooled analysis from 17 studies showed that the mean age of this group of patients with LVADs was 59.5 ± 4.5 years and that mean support duration was 146.2 ± 60.2 hours. In 78.5% of patients (range, 53.8-100%), adjunctive reperfusion therapy, mainly percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), was used. Mean weaning and survival rates were 58.5% (range, 46-75%) and 40% (range, 29-58%), respectively.[34]

In any case, comparing studies is difficult because important data are usually missing, mean age of patients were different, and time to treatment is not standardized. Hemodynamic presentation seems to be worse compared with data reported in the SHOCK trial, with lower cardiac index, lower systolic aortic pressure, and higher serum lactates. Taking these considerations into account, LVAD support seems to give no survival improvement in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (MI), compared with early reperfusion alone or in combination with IABP.

In a randomized, controlled trial in which 129 patients with end-stage heart failure who were ineligible for cardiac transplantation were assigned either to receive an LVAD (68 patients) or to undergo optimal medical management, survival rates were higher in the LVAD group. The rates of survival at 1 year were 52% in the device group and 25% in the medical therapy group, while the rates at 2 years were 23% and 8%, respectively. In addition, the quality of life was significantly improved at 1 year in the device group.[40]

Implantable LVADs are being used as a bridge to heart transplantation for patients with acute MI and cardiogenic shock.[41] According to the HeartMate Data Registry[42] , from 1986-1998, 41 patients (5% of the total number of HeartMate IP patients) were supported with this implantable pneumatic device for acute MI, and 25 (61%) were successfully bridged to heart transplantation. (See an example of an LVAD below.)

HeartMate II Left Ventricular Assist Device. Repri HeartMate II Left Ventricular Assist Device. Reprinted with the permission of Thoratec Corporation.

However, LVADs as a bridging option for patients with cardiogenic shock must be considered cautiously and must be avoided in patients who are unlikely to survive or are not likely to be transplant candidates. Further investigations are required to better define indications, support modalities, and outcomes.

The indications for insertion of a ventricular assist device are controversial. Such an aggressive approach to support the circulatory system in cardiogenic shock is appropriate (1) after the failure of medical treatment and an IABP, (2) when the cause of cardiogenic shock is potentially reversible, or (3) if the device can be used as a bridging option.


Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty

The retrospective and prospective data favor aggressive mechanical revascularization in patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to myocardial infarction (MI).

Reestablishing blood flow in the infarct-related artery may improve left ventricular function and survival following MI. In acute MI, studies show that percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) can achieve adequate flow in 80-90% of patients, compared with 50-60% of patients after thrombolytic therapy (TT).

Several retrospective clinical trials have shown that patients with cardiogenic shock due to myocardial ischemia benefitted (reduction in 30-day mortality rates) when treated with angioplasty. A study of direct (primary) PTCA in patients with cardiogenic shock reported lower mortality rates in patients treated with angioplasty combined with the use of stents than in patients treat with medical therapy.[43]

A study by Antoniucci et al found that mortality rates increase in relation to the length of time to treatment in patients with acute MI who are not considered to be at low risk.[44] To study the relationship of time to treatment and mortality in patients with acute MI, a series of 1336 patients who underwent successful primary PTCA were stratified into low-risk and not–low-risk patient groups. The 6-month mortality rate was 9.3% for not–low risk patients and 1.3% for the low-risk patients. An increase in the mortality rate from 4.8% to 12.9% with increasing time to reperfusion was observed in the not–low-risk group. A delay from symptom onset to treatment resulted in higher mortality rates for the not–low-risk patients.[44]

Using prospective data from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) PCI database that evaluated data from 6,489 English and Welsh patients undergoing PCI for acute coronary syndrome in the setting of cardiogenic shock, Kunadian et al reported mortality rates of 37.3% at 30 days, 40.0% at 90 days, and 44.3% at 1 year.[16]


Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Critical left main artery disease and 3-vessel coronary artery disease are common findings in patients who develop cardiogenic shock. The potential contribution of ischemia in the noninfarcted zone contributes to the deterioration of already compromised myocardial function.

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the setting of cardiogenic shock is generally associated with high surgical morbidity and mortality rates. Because the results of percutaneous interventions can be favorable, routine bypass surgery is often discouraged for these patients.

A 2004 task force of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) gave a class I recommendation to the performance of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or emergent CABG in patients younger than 75 years who have ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who develop shock within 36 hours of MI and can be treated within 18 hours of shock onset. Performance of primary PCI or emergent CABG was considered reasonable in patients older than 75 years (class IIa recommendation).[45]


Revascularization in the SHOCK Trial

Results from the SHOCK (SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries in cardiogenic shocK) trial supported the superiority of a strategy that combines early revascularization with medical management in patients with cardiogenic shock.[22, 43, 46] In the study, patients were assigned to receive either optimal medical management, including an  intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and thrombolytic therapy (TT), or cardiac catheterization followed by revascularization using percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG).

The mortality rates at 30 days were 46.7% in the early intervention group and 56% in patients treated with optimal medical management. Although these 30-day results did not reach statistical significance, the mortality rate at 6 months was significantly lower in the early intervention group (50.3% vs 63.1%).[43]

The 1-year survival rates were also reported from the SHOCK trial.[22] The survival rate at 1-year was 46.7% for patients in the early revascularization group and 33.6% in the conservative management group. The treatment benefit was apparent only for patients younger than 75 years (51.6% survival rate in early revascularization group vs 33.3% in patients treated with optimal medical management).

Based on the outcome of this study, the recommendation is that patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock, particularly those younger than 75 years, should be rapidly transferred to a center with personnel capable of performing early angiography and revascularization procedures.[47] Long-term follow-up was conducted annually until 2005. A strategy of early revascularization resulted in a 13.2% absolute and 67% relative improvement in 6-year survival compared with initial medical therapy.[48]


Patient Transfer

Immediately transfer a patient who develops cardiogenic shock to an institution at which invasive monitoring, coronary revascularization, and skilled personnel are available to provide expert care.

Patients with cardiogenic shock who are admitted to a hospital without facilities for revascularization should be immediately transferred to a tertiary care center with such facilities. If time to PCI is more than 1 hour and onset of symptoms has been within 3 hours, rapid administration of TT is recommended.

It should be kept in mind, however, that attempts to transfer a patient with cardiogenic shock must be made only when everything possible has been done to stabilize his or her condition and when the level of care during the transfer will not significantly decrease.

Contributor Information and Disclosures

Xiushui (Mike) Ren, MD Cardiologist, The Permanente Medical Group; Associate Director of Research, Cardiovascular Diseases Fellowship, California Pacific Medical Center

Xiushui (Mike) Ren, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American College of Cardiology, American Society of Echocardiography

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.


Andrew Lenneman 

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Henry H Ooi, MD, MRCPI Director, Advanced Heart Failure and Cardiac Transplant Program, Nashville Veterans Affairs Medical Center; Assistant Professor of Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.


Ethan S Brandler, MD, MPH Clinical Assistant Professor, Attending Physician, Departments of Emergency Medicine and Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Brooklyn, Kings County Hospital

Ethan S Brandler, MD, MPH is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Emergency Physicians and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

David FM Brown, MD Associate Professor, Division of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Vice Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital

David FM Brown, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Emergency Physicians and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Daniel J Dire, MD, FACEP, FAAP, FAAEM Clinical Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Texas Medical School at Houston; Clinical Professor, Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Health Sciences Center San Antonio

Daniel J Dire, MD, FACEP, FAAP, FAAEM is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, American Academy of Emergency Medicine, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Emergency Physicians, and Association of Military Surgeons of the US

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Mark A Hostetler, MD, MPH Associate Professor of Pediatrics, University of Chicago; Chief, Section of Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Medical Director of Pediatric Emergency Department, University of Chicago Children's Hospital

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

A Antoine Kazzi MD, Deputy Chief of Staff, American University of Beirut Medical Center; Associate Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, American University of Beirut, Lebanon

A Antoine Kazzi is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Emergency Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Russell F Kelly MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Rush Medical College; Chairman of Adult Cardiology and Director of the Fellowship Program, Cook County Hospital

Russell F Kelly is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Cardiology

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Ronald J Oudiz, MD, FACP, FACC, FCCP Professor of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine; Director, Liu Center for Pulmonary Hypertension, Division of Cardiology, LA Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center

Ronald J Oudiz, MD, FACP, FACC, FCCP is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Cardiology, American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Physicians, American Heart Association, and American Thoracic Society

Disclosure: Actelion Grant/research funds Clinical Trials + honoraria; Encysive Grant/research funds Clinical Trials + honoraria; Gilead Grant/research funds Clinical Trials + honoraria; Pfizer Grant/research funds Clinical Trials + honoraria; United Therapeutics Grant/research funds Clinical Trials + honoraria; Lilly Grant/research funds Clinical Trials + honoraria; LungRx Clinical Trials + honoraria; Bayer Grant/research funds Consulting

Sat Sharma, MD, FRCPC Professor and Head, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba; Site Director, Respiratory Medicine, St Boniface General Hospital

Sat Sharma, MD, FRCPC is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Sleep Medicine, American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine, American Thoracic Society, Canadian Medical Association, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Royal Society of Medicine, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and World Medical Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Richard H Sinert, DO Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine, Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, Research Director, State University of New York College of Medicine; Consulting Staff, Department of Emergency Medicine, Kings County Hospital Center

Richard H Sinert, DO is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Physicians and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Medscape Salary Employment

  1. Alonso DR, Scheidt S, Post M, Killip T. Pathophysiology of cardiogenic shock. Quantification of myocardial necrosis, clinical, pathologic and electrocardiographic correlations. Circulation. 1973 Sep. 48 (3):588-96. [Medline].

  2. Reynolds HR, Hochman JS. Cardiogenic shock: current concepts and improving outcomes. Circulation. 2008 Feb 5. 117(5):686-97. [Medline].

  3. Funaro S, La Torre G, Madonna M, et al, for the AMICI Investigators. Incidence, determinants, and prognostic value of reverse left ventricular remodelling after primary percutaneous coronary intervention: results of the Acute Myocardial Infarction Contrast Imaging (AMICI) multicenter study. Eur Heart J. 2009 Mar. 30 (5):566-75. [Medline].

  4. Forrester JS, Wyatt HL, Da Luz PL, Tyberg JV, Diamond GA, Swan HJ. Functional significance of regional ischemic contraction abnormalities. Circulation. 1976 Jul. 54 (1):64-70. [Medline].

  5. Beyersdorf F, Buckberg GD, Acar C, et al. Cardiogenic shock after acute coronary occlusion. Pathogenesis, early diagnosis, and treatment. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1989 Feb. 37 (1):28-36. [Medline].

  6. Al-Reesi A, Al-Zadjali N, Perry J, et al. Do beta-blockers reduce short-term mortality following acute myocardial infarction? A systematic review and meta-analysis. CJEM. 2008 May. 10(3):215-23. [Medline].

  7. Chen ZM, Pan HC, Chen YP, et al. Early intravenous then oral metoprolol in 45,852 patients with acute myocardial infarction: randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2005 Nov 5. 366(9497):1622-32. [Medline].

  8. Kolte D, Khera S, Aronow WS, 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 Jan 13. 3 (1):e000590. [Medline].

  9. Goldberg RJ, Samad NA, Yarzebski J, Gurwitz J, Bigelow C, Gore JM. Temporal trends in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1999 Apr 15. 340(15):1162-8. [Medline].

  10. Roffi M, Patrono C, Collet JP, et al, for the European Society of Cardiology Task Force. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2015 Aug 29. [Medline].

  11. Graf T, Desch S, Eitel I, Thiele H. Acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: pharmacologic and mechanical hemodynamic support pathways. Coron Artery Dis. 2015 Sep. 26 (6):535-44. [Medline].

  12. Babaev A, Frederick PD, Pasta DJ, Every N, Sichrovsky T, Hochman JS. Trends in management and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. JAMA. 2005 Jul 27. 294(4):448-54. [Medline].

  13. Fox KA, Steg PG, Eagle KA, Goodman SG, Anderson FA Jr, Granger CB, et al. Decline in rates of death and heart failure in acute coronary syndromes, 1999-2006. JAMA. 2007 May 2. 297(17):1892-900. [Medline].

  14. Jeger RV, Radovanovic D, Hunziker PR, Pfisterer ME, Stauffer JC, Erne P, et al. Ten-year trends in the incidence and treatment of cardiogenic shock. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Nov 4. 149(9):618-26. [Medline].

  15. Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, et al, for the ACC, AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Dec 23. 64 (24):e139-228. [Medline].

  16. Kunadian V, Qiu W, Ludman P, et al, for the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research. Outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock following percutaneous coronary intervention in the contemporary era: an analysis from the BCIS database (British Cardiovascular Intervention Society). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Dec. 7 (12):1374-85. [Medline].

  17. Hamon M, Agostini D, Le Page O, Riddell JW, Hamon M. Prognostic impact of right ventricular involvement in patients with acute myocardial infarction: meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2008 Jul. 36(7):2023-33. [Medline].

  18. Hasdai D, Califf RM, Thompson TD, Hochman JS, Ohman EM, Pfisterer M, et al. Predictors of cardiogenic shock after thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000 Jan. 35(1):136-43. [Medline].

  19. Picard MH, Davidoff R, Sleeper LA, and the SHOCK Trial investigators. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK. Echocardiographic predictors of survival and response to early revascularization in cardiogenic shock. Circulation. 2003 Jan 21. 107 (2):279-84. [Medline].

  20. Jeger RV, Lowe AM, Buller CE, Pfisterer ME, Dzavik V, Webb JG, et al. Hemodynamic parameters are prognostically important in cardiogenic shock but similar following early revascularization or initial medical stabilization: a report from the SHOCK Trial. Chest. 2007 Dec. 132(6):1794-803. [Medline].

  21. O'Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, et al, for the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2013 Jan 29. 127 (4):e362-425. [Medline].

  22. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, White HD, Dzavik V, Wong SC, Menon V, et al. One-year survival following early revascularization for cardiogenic shock. JAMA. 2001 Jan 10. 285(2):190-2. [Medline].

  23. Shin TG, Choi JH, Jo IJ, Sim MS, Song HG, Jeong YK, et al. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with inhospital cardiac arrest: A comparison with conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Crit Care Med. 2011 Jan. 39(1):1-7. [Medline].

  24. De Backer D, Biston P, Devriendt J, et al, for the SOAP II Investigators. Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock. N Engl J Med. 2010 Mar 4. 362 (9):779-89. [Medline].

  25. Ellender TJ, Skinner JC. The use of vasopressors and inotropes in the emergency medical treatment of shock. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2008 Aug. 26(3):759-86, ix. [Medline].

  26. Naples RM, Harris JW, Ghaemmaghami CA. Critical care aspects in the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2008 Aug. 26(3):685-702, viii. [Medline].

  27. Felker GM, Benza RL, Chandler AB, et al, for the OPTIME-CHF Investigators. Heart failure etiology and response to milrinone in decompensated heart failure: results from the OPTIME-CHF study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 Mar 19. 41 (6):997-1003. [Medline].

  28. Gheorghiade M, Gattis WA, Klein L. OPTIME in CHF trial: rethinking the use of inotropes in the management of worsening chronic heart failure resulting in hospitalization. Eur J Heart Fail. 2003 Jan. 5 (1):9-12. [Medline].

  29. Fuhrmann JT, Schmeisser A, Schulze MR, Wunderlich C, Schoen SP, Rauwolf T, et al. Levosimendan is superior to enoximone in refractory cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Crit Care Med. 2008 Aug. 36(8):2257-66. [Medline].

  30. De Luca L, Colucci WS, Nieminen MS, Massie BM, Gheorghiade M. Evidence-based use of levosimendan in different clinical settings. Eur Heart J. 2006 Aug. 27(16):1908-20. [Medline].

  31. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell'Infarto Miocardico (GISSI). Effectiveness of intravenous thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction. Lancet. 1986 Feb 22. 1 (8478):397-402. [Medline].

  32. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochi-nasi nell'Infarto Miocardico (GISSI). Long-term effects of intravenous thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: final report of the GISSI study. Lancet. 1987 Oct 17. 2 (8564):871-4. [Medline].

  33. Sanborn TA, Sleeper LA, Bates ER, et al. Impact of thrombolysis, intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation, and their combination in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK?. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000 Sep. 36(3 Suppl A):1123-9. [Medline].

  34. Garatti A, Russo C, Lanfranconi M, Colombo T, Bruschi G, Trunfio S, et al. Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: an experimental and clinical review. ASAIO J. 2007 May-Jun. 53(3):278-87. [Medline].

  35. Cheng JM, den Uil CA, Hoeks SE, van der Ent M, Jewbali LS, van Domburg RT, et al. Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices vs. intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation for treatment of cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis of controlled trials. Eur Heart J. 2009 Sep. 30(17):2102-8. [Medline].

  36. Sjauw KD, Engstrom AE, Vis MM, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of intra-aortic balloon pump therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: should we change the guidelines?. Eur Heart J. 2009 Feb. 30 (4):459-68. [Medline].

  37. Ramanathan K, Farkouh ME, Cosmi JE, French JK, Harkness SM, Džavík V, et al. Rapid complete reversal of systemic hypoperfusion after intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation and survival in cardiogenic shock complicating an acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 2011 Aug. 162(2):268-75. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  38. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012 Oct 4. 367(14):1287-96. [Medline].

  39. Windecker S. Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices for treatment of patients with cardiogenic shock. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2007 Oct. 13(5):521-7. [Medline].

  40. Rose EA, Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ, Heitjan DF, Stevenson LW, Dembitsky W, et al. Long-term use of a left ventricular assist device for end-stage heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001 Nov 15. 345(20):1435-43. [Medline].

  41. Farrar DJ, Lawson JH, Litwak P, Cederwall G. Thoratec VAD system as a bridge to heart transplantation. J Heart Transplant. 1990 Jul-Aug. 9(4):415-22; discussion 422-3. [Medline].

  42. Damme L, Heatley J, Radovancevic B. Clinical results with the HeartMate LVAD: Worldwide Registry update. J Congestive Heart Failure Circ Support. 2001. 2:5-7(3).

  43. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, Sanborn TA, White HD, Talley JD, et al. 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. 1999 Aug 26. 341(9):625-34. [Medline].

  44. Antoniucci D, Valenti R, Migliorini A, Moschi G, Trapani M, Buonamici P, et al. Relation of time to treatment and mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol. 2002 Jun 1. 89(11):1248-52. [Medline].

  45. Antman EM, Anbe DT, Armstrong PW, et al, for the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction--executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the 1999 guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Aug 4. 44 (3):671-719. [Medline].

  46. Hochman JS, Boland J, Sleeper LA, Porway M, Brinker J, Col J, et al. Current spectrum of cardiogenic shock and effect of early revascularization on mortality. Results of an International Registry. SHOCK Registry Investigators. Circulation. 1995 Feb 1. 91(3):873-81. [Medline].

  47. Jeger RV, Harkness SM, Ramanathan K, et al, for the SHOCK Investigators. Emergency revascularization in patients with cardiogenic shock on admission: a report from the SHOCK trial and registry. Eur Heart J. 2006 Mar. 27 (6):664-70. [Medline].

  48. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al, for the SHOCK Investigators. Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2006 Jun 7. 295 (21):2511-5. [Medline].

  49. Slottosch I, Liakopoulos O, Kuhn E, Deppe AC, Scherner M, Madershahian N, Choi YH, Wahlers T. Outcomes after peripheral extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock: a single-center experience. J Surg Res. 2013 May 15;181(2):e47-55. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2012.07.030. Epub 2012 Aug 1. [Medline].

  50. Anderson ML, Peterson ED, Peng SA, et al. Differences in the profile, treatment, and prognosis of patients with cardiogenic shock by myocardial infarction classification: A report from NCDR. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013 Nov. 6 (6):708-15. [Medline].

  51. Menon V, White H, LeJemtel T, et al. The clinical profile of patients with suspected cardiogenic shock due to predominant left ventricular failure: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries in cardiogenic shocK?. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000 Sep. 36 (3 suppl A):1071-6. [Medline].

  52. Koprivanac M, Kelava M, Soltesz E, et al. Advances in temporary mechanical support for treatment of cardiogenic shock. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2015 Nov. 12 (6):689-702. [Medline].

  53. Susen S, Rauch A, Van Belle E, Vincentelli A, Lenting PJ. Circulatory support devices: fundamental aspects and clinical management of bleeding and thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost. 2015 Oct. 13 (10):1757-67. [Medline].

Patient with an acute anterolateral myocardial infarction who developed cardiogenic shock. Coronary angiography images showed severe stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery, which was dilated by percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty.
A coronary angiogram image of a patient with cardiogenic shock demonstrates severe stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery.
A coronary angiogram image of a patient with cardiogenic shock demonstrates severe stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery. Following angioplasty of the critical stenosis, coronary flow is reestablished. The patient recovered from cardiogenic shock.
This ECG shows evidence of an extensive anterolateral myocardial infarction; this patient subsequently developed cardiogenic shock.
ECG tracing shows further evolutionary changes in a patient with cardiogenic shock.
ECG tracing in a patient who developed cardiogenic shock secondary to pericarditis and pericardial tamponade.
A 63-year-old man admitted to the emergency department with clinical features of cardiogenic shock. The ECG revealed findings indicative of wide-complex tachycardia, likely ventricular tachycardia. Following cardioversion, his shock state improved. The cause of ventricular tachycardia was myocardial ischemia.
Short-axis view of the left ventricle demonstrating small pericardial effusion, low ejection fraction, and segmental wall motion abnormalities. Courtesy of Michael Stone, MD, RDMS.
Pleural sliding in an intercostal space demonstrating increased lung comet artifacts suggestive of pulmonary edema. Courtesy of Michael Stone, MD, RDMS.
HeartMate II Left Ventricular Assist Device. Reprinted with the permission of Thoratec Corporation.
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.